Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/37/2009

V.S.Rajasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maharishi University of Management and Technology, Rep. by the Registrar & 6 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

S. Auxilia Peter,

27 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                              BEFORE    Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE  R. SUBBIAH           ::      PRESIDENT                       

                                                   Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 CC. No. 37/2009

                                                            DATED THIS THE 27^th  DAY OF JULY 2022

 

M/s V.S.Rajasekar,

S/o Mr.V.Vincent,

No.2,  Emmanuel Street,

Gandhi Nagar, Avadi,

Chennai 600 054                                                 ..Complainant

 

                                            Versus

 

1.Maharishi University of Management

And Technology,

Rep.by the Registrar,

P.O. Mangla Distt,

Bilaspur (C.G)- 495 001  

 

2. The Chancellor,

Maharishi Institute of Management,

 

3. Mr.K.Vasudevan,

Administrative Officer,

Maharishi Institute of Management,

 

4. Dr.Vijayakumar Jayaram,

Maharishi Institute of Management,

 

5. Sri Major General Karthikeyan,

Director,

Maharishi Institute of Management,

 

6. Prof.V.G.Sarangan,

Director,

Maharishi Institute of Management,

 

All are having office at P.T.C Colony,

Pallavan Nagar,

Thiruverkadu, Chennai 600 077  

 

7. Pro.Briji Mohan,

The Registrar,

Maharishi Institute of Management and Technology,

P.O Mangla Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) – 495 001                         ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainant               : M/s Auxilia Peter

Counsel for the ops 1 to 3 & 7            : M/s Vishal Bhat nagar  

Opposite parties 4,5 & 6                    : Dismissed, prosecution not taken

 

          This complaint is coming up before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court :

 

  Docket order

          No representation for both. This complaint is posted today for appearance of both  and for filing  written arguments of opposite parties and for arguments (list) or for dismissal. when the matter was called at 11.00 A.M, the complainant was not present hence, passed over and called again at 12.50 noon, then also the  complainant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case. The complaint is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.

          Sd/-                                                                                                         Sd/-

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT