- 25 Dec, 2023
- 0 Comments
- 1 Min Read
PADMA VINOD BETAI V. M/S. ACKRUTI JAY CHANDAN JV
Padma Vinod Betai Vs. M/S Ackruti Jay Chandan JV
1. PADMA VINOD BETAI
123-A, JOLLY MAKER APARTMENTS NO.1, CUFFE
PARADE, COLABA,
MUMBAI-400005 ………..Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/S. ACKRUTI JAY CHANDAN JV
ACKRUTI TRADE CENTRE, ROAD NO. 7, MIDC,
ANDHERI (EAST)
MUMBAI-400093
MAHARASHTRA ………..Respondent(s)
Case No. : FIRST APPEAL NO. 1537 OF 2016
Date of Judgement : 05 December 2023
Judges : MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,
DR. SADHNA SHANKER
For Appellant : —— PROXY (APPEARANCE NOT MARKED)
For Respondent : MR. VINAYAK SHARMA, ADVOCATE PROXY FOR MR. VIKAS MEHTA, ADVOCATE
Facts
- This is a First Appeal filed by Padma Vinod Betai against the order dated 19/09/2016 passed in Complaint No. 3/2011 by the State Commission Maharashtra.
- The original complaint was filed by Padma Vinod Betai against M/s Ackruti Jay Chandan JV regarding some consumer dispute. The State Commission passed an order dated 19/09/2016 which has been challenged in this appeal.
Arguments by Parties Appellant:
- No arguments of the appellant are mentioned in the order. A proxy counsel sought further opportunity to file short synopsis on 05/12/2023.
Respondent:
- No arguments on behalf of the respondent are mentioned.
Court’s Observations and Decision
- It is observed by the National Commission that either no one has been appearing for the Appellant or a proxy counsel appeared on the last three dates of hearing.
- The Commission noted that it appears the Appellant has lost interest in pursuing the matter.
- In view of the above, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Order “The Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.”
Sections referred: None Laws referred: None
The order is passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and Hon’ble Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Download Court Copy : https://dreamlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/task-23-nitishu.pdf
Full text of Judgement :
In this matter, proxy counsel appears on behalf of the Appellant today and seeks a further opportunity to file short synopsis.
It is seen that either no one has been appearing for the Appellant or a proxy counsel appeared for the last three dates of hearing (01.07.2022, 28.12.2022 and 09.08.2023). It appears that the Appellant has lost interest in the matter.
The Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
—END—
