Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Maggi Tomato Ketchup, vs Shaikh Mujib Hamid on 4 February, 2013

  
 
 
 
 
 
 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
  
 







 



 

STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT   NAGPUR

 

5th
Floor, Administrative Building No. 1, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001

 

 

 

First
Appeal No. A/01/1173

 

(Arisen out of Order Dated 03/07/2001 in Case No. CC/97/385 of District Yavatmal)

 

  

 

 

 

MAGGI TOMATO KETCHUP, 

 

NESTLE INDIA LIMITED,

 

M-54,  CONNAUGHT
CIRCUS, 

 

  NEW
  DELHI 
...........Appellant(s)

 

  

 

  

 

Versus 

 

  

 

1.

SHAIKH MUJIB HAMID POLICE INSPECTOR, LOCAL CRIME BRANCH, YAVATMAL M.S.  

2. M.D.SONAVANE, POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE BUCKLE NO. 1083, POLICE HEAD OFFICE, YAVATMAL M.S.  

3. BHAVANDAS BHAICHAND LOHANA PROPRIETOR OF SATKAR SWEET MART, DUTTA CHOWK, YAVATMAL M.S.  

4. RAJESH BHAICHAND LOHANA C/O.SATKAR SWEET MART, YAVATMAL YAVATMAL M.S. ...........Respondent(s)   BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole Presiding Member   Hon'ble Smt.Jayshree Yengal Member   Hon'ble Mr.N. Arumugam Member   PRESENT: None for the Appellant None for Respondents No.1 & 2 Adv.

Mr N Majithia for Respondents No.3 & 4    

ORDER (Passed on 04.02.2013)   Per Mr S M Shembole, Honble Presiding Member   None for the appellant is present. Its counsel is also absent.

 

On 20.07.2012 notice was issued to the appellant as well as respondents but no report about service of notice to the appellant and respondent No.1 & 2 is received.

 

Adv. Mr N Majithia appeared for respondents No.3 & 4 and filed his Vakilpatra today.

 

Office copy of the notice reflects that it was issued on correct address of the appellant as well as respondents No.1 & 2 as shown in the appeal memo. Therefore, it will have to be presumed that the appellant and respondents No.1 & 2 are served with notice but they are absent. Therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed in default.

 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.

 

[ S. M. SHEMBOLE ] PRESIDING MEMBER     [ SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER     [ N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER sj