NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/433/2009

KULDEEP MAKANJI NAGARIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. BANK OF INDIA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

11 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIFIRST APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 30/06/2009 in Complaint No. 64/2009 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. KULDEEP MAKANJI NAGARIYAS/o Mr. Makanji Nagariya, R/o 14/A/2, The New Sion CHSL, Road No. 24, Sion WestMumbai - 400 022 ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/S. BANK OF INDIA & ANR.Sion Branch, 29, Amba Bhavan, Sion Circle, SionMumbai - 400 0222. REMI BIZ PREMISES CHSSecretary, Remi Biz Premises CHS, Shah Industrial Estate, Off. Veera Desai Road, Andhri WestMumbai - 400 053 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant :IN PERSON
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 11 Jan 2010
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.

Heard appellant who appears in person. As per Office note there is delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. No condonation application has been filed. Besides this, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party no.2- Society. Opposite Party No.1 put to sale the property, in question, which was purchased by the present appellant. The property is stated to be under attachment by Tax Recovery Officer and the Tax Recovery Officer has prohibited the Society from giving No Objection to the transfer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission found that it was not a consumer dispute and the Complainant was free to seek remedy in accordance with law. In view of the above, I do not find that any case has been made out for entertaining this first appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is free to seek remedy available to him in accordance with law.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER