Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

RP/17/30

KU. TANUSHREE DAGA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MIT SCHOLL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION - Opp.Party(s)

ADV.MILIND Y.WADODKAR

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH
NAGPUR
 
Revision Petition No. RP/17/30
(Arisen out of Order Dated 18/03/2016 in Case No. CC/834/13 of District Nagpur)
 
1. KU. TANUSHREE DAGA
NAGPUR
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MIT SCHOLL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, DR. MANGESH R. DESHPANDE, 124, EXSERVICEMAN COLONY, POUND ROAD, KOTHURUD, PUNE-411 038
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
2. DR. MAHESH R. DESHPANDE
MIT SCHOOL OF DISTANCE, EDUCATION THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, 124, EX-SERVICEMAN COLONY, POUND ROAD, KOTHURUD, PUNE-411 038
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal MEMBER
 
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 08 Feb 2018
Final Order / Judgement

(Delivered on 08/02/2018)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

          None for the revision petitioner is present. Perusal of the record & proceedings of the appeal shows that  it was filed  as back as on 14/06/2016. However, the petitioner failed to remove four office objections  recorded by the Registrar on 14/06/2016. Therefore, notice dated 16/09/2016 was issued to the petitioner  to remove office objections  within  15 days  from the receipt  of that  notice. The said notice has been duly served to the  petitioner  as seen from the acknowledgement  received duly signed by the petitioner.  Moreover, this commission separately displayed the notice on 30/10/2017 on Notice Board of this Commission calling upon the concerned  parties  for removing office objections and  it was made it clear   that  in case of default  in removing  the office objections  within 15 days, the appeal will be placed before the  bench for appropriate order.

          The said objections  are not removed  by the petitioner  as seen from the report  of the Registrar of this Commission dated 28/11/2017. Therefore,  the appeal  was placed  before bench on 13/12/2017 for appropriate  order. This Commission  observed in the  order dated 13/12/2017 that  as office objections are not removed by the petitioner,  the petition deserves to be dismissed for want of  prosecution. The petition  came to be adjourned  till this date for appropriate order.   We find that  neither the appellant  removed the office objections  nor the appellant  appeared before this Commission  despite  issuance  of notice as above. Hence, the petition   deserves to be dismissed  in default.  Accordingly, the petition  is dismissed in default.  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal]
MEMBER

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.