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 1, Cited by 4]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Chief Manager/ Authorized Officer ... vs G Mahimaiah on 1 December, 2014

Bench: Madan B. Lokur, R. Banumathi

     ITEM NO.41                                     COURT NO.9                       SECTION XVII

                                      S U P R E M E C O U R T O F                I N D I A
                                              RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)                              No(s).      31806/2014

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/08/2014
     in FA No. 483/2014 passed by the National Consumer Disputes
     Reddressal Commission, New Delhi)

     CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER
     STATE BANK OF MYSORE                                                           Petitioner(s)

                                                            VERSUS

     G MAHIMAIAH                                     Respondent(s)
     (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief
     and office report)
     Date : 01/12/2014                       This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
                                             HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
     For Petitioner(s)                       Mr.   V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv.
                                             Mr.   Pradeep Kumar Dubey,Adv.
                                             Mr.   Abhigya, Adv.
                                             Ms.   Richa Sharma, Adv.
     For Respondent(s)

                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                                                        O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he has deposited an amount of Rs.35,000/- and this is in terms of the second proviso to Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. It is submitted that the National Commission should not have directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount.

Issue notice.

Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

In the meanwhile, the proceedings before the National Commission may continue on the deposit already made by the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Meenakshi Kohli
Date: 2014.12.02
12:32:46 IST
Reason:


     (MEENAKSHI KOHLI)                                                            (JASWINDER KAUR)
       COURT MASTER                                                                 COURT MASTER