West Bengal

StateCommission

RC/08/85

Members of Managing Committee of St. Xavier's School. Purulia. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Abu Sufian. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A. K. Sil.

05 Jan 2009

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGAL
BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
REVISION PETITION No. RC/08/85 of 2008

Members of Managing Committee of St. Xavier's School. Purulia.
Fr. Hilary Lobo, 		...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Abu Sufian.
Anup Banerjee.
Ramesh Sultania.
Rajat Dutta.
Sudhanshu Sekhar Sarkar.
Sital Sengupta.
Abhiranjan Kuiri.
Amit Chatterjee.
Ramkrishna Chakraborty.
Dr. Sashanka Sekhar Senapati.		 ...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI 2. SMT. SILPI MAJUMDER

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

No. 3/05.01.2009.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Revision Petitioner through Mr. A. K. Sil, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. through Mr. P. R. Sinha Sarkar, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Head Mr. Sil, the Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Sinha Sarkar for some of the O.Ps (O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5).  Mr. Sinha Sarkar States on instruction that in spite of efforts he could not get instruction from the other O.Ps to represent them in this proceeding.  But Mr. Sinha Sarkar refers to a judgement of this Commission dated 22.06.2007 passed in SC Case No. 41/R/05 between the parties arising out of the same proceeding wherein maintainability question has been considered.

 

Mr. Sil, the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist states that the earlier proceeding, as relied on by Mr. Sinha Sarkar, has no bearing in the matter as his client, the Revisionist does not insist on the same point which was considered and decided in the said earlier proceeding and it is argued in that view of the matter this revision may be heard out finally after the notices on other Respondents are served.

 

At this stage we have considered the application on which the present impugned order was passed.  Mr. Sil relied on paragraps 7 & 8 of the said application for showing the difference of subject matter of this present application and the earlier proceeding.  On perusal of the said paragraphs 7 & 8 we find that those are general statements made and in the application the facts have been stated in paragraph 5 & 6, in the background of which the said paragraphs 7 & 8 are to be read.  On perusal of the said paragraphs 5 & 6 we are of the opinion that those are substantially identical to the subject matter of the earlier proceeding.  Therefore, we are unable to entertain the present revision application as we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be interfered.

 

Mr. Sil, the Ld. Advocate states that his contention is that the subject matter of the present proceeding as contend in the complaint are such cannot be decided in a summary proceeding before a Forum.  But this having been not stated in the application itself, cannot be taken into consideration.  In the above circumstances we do not find any ground for interference and the revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

 




......................JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI
......................SMT. SILPI MAJUMDER