West Bengal

StateCommission

RC/111/2009

Tulsi Sen. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Debashis Sinha. - Opp.Party(s)

1. Mr. Sankar Prasad Kar, 2. Malati Kar.

16 Nov 2009

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGALBHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
RC No. 111 of 2009
1. Tulsi Sen.s/O Late Surendra Lal Sen. 3/44, Mahendra Banerjee Road. Behala, Kolkata-700060. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Debashis Sinha.S/O Sri Mohan Lal Sinha. Sole Proprietor of M/S S.K. Builders, 20, Krishna Kamal Bhattacharjee Lane. PS. Howrah, Dist. Howrah-711 101.2. Sri Pabitra Ghosh. S/O Sri Kala Chand Ghosh. 1002, Mahendra Banerjee Road. PS. Behala, Kolkata- 700060. Dist. 24-Parganas (S).3. Smt. Subra Ghosh.W/O Sri Pabitra Ghosh. 1001, Mahendra Banerjee Road. Behala, Kolkata- 700060. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :1. Mr. Sankar Prasad Kar, 2. Malati Kar., Advocate for
For the Respondent :Mr. amalendu Chakraborty. , Advocate

Dated : 16 Nov 2009
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. 1/16.11.2009.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Revision Petitioner is present through Ld. Advocate Mr. Sankar Prasad Kar.   O.P. No. 2 enters appearance by filing Vokalatnama through Mr. Amalendu Chakraborty, the Ld. Advocate.  Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and Mr. Chakraborty, the Ld. Advocate for O.P. No. 2.  It appears that by the final judgement the complaint case was decided finally on 20.06.2007 in CC Case 19 of 2006 by the Forum.  Developer – O.P. preferred an appeal which, we have been told, was dismissed some time back.  Therefore, the judgement has reached a finality.  By the said judgement directions were given and those also have become final in view of the dismissal of the appeal in the meantime.  The impugned order has considered the said aspects and the objection taken this time by the owner – O.P. does not appear to be on an acceptable ground.  The order is clear and now it is required to be complied only.  The technical question raised by the Revisionist also does not appear to be having any substance as the partners and the partnership firm does not have any vital difference which requires an intervention by this Commission.  In the circumstances the revision is dismissed.

 


MR. A K RAY, MemberHON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENTMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER, Member