West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/68/2010

M/S S. J. Graphics Private Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Debasis Jana. - Opp.Party(s)

1. Mr. G. Gupta Ray, 2. Mr. A. S. Chatterjee.

22 Dec 2010

ORDER


31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor),
FA No: 68 Of 2010
(Arisen out of Order Dated 03/07/2009 in Case No. 82/2008 of District South 24 Parganas DF, Alipore)
1. M/S S. J. Graphics Private Ltd.represented by its Director 68B, S.N. Banerjee Road. Kolkata- 700014. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. Shri Debasis Jana.S/O Sri Bishnupada Jana 145, Dr. G.S. Bose Road. Picnic Garden, Kabardanga Field. Kolkata- 39.2. Allahabad Bank.B.B. chatterjee Road Branch, Kolkata- 42.3. Auto Print Machinery Manufacturers Private Ltd.represented by its Director 45, 1st floor, 11th Street, Tatabad, Coimbatore- 641012. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI PRESIDENTMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER MemberMR. SHANKAR COARI Member
PRESENT :1. Mr. G. Gupta Ray, 2. Mr. A. S. Chatterjee., Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr. Gobinda Prasad Roy., Advocate for the Respondent 1

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.

ORDER

No. 7/09.06.2010.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Appellant through Mr. Gouranga Gupta Roy, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 through Mr. Gobinda Prasad Roy, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 2 through Ms. Z. N. Khan, the Ld. Advocate are present.  The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 files Vokalatnama. 

 

Heard Mr. Gupta Roy, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Gobinda Prasad Roy, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 as also Ms. Z. N. Khan, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.  The only contention of the Appellant is that the transaction involved in the present appeal shows that the purchase was made by the Complainant for commercial purpose and no case of livelihood or self employment has been made out.  In view of the judgement in the case of Mira Industries – vs. – Modern Construction reported in 2009 II CPJ 402 the law has been explained as regards the effect of the amendment brought in the year 2003 in the definition in Section 2(i)(d) of the C. P. Act.  Mr. Roy, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant – Respondent No. 1 contended that the said objection has not been raised by the O.P. in their Written Version and this being a case of explanation as regards law prevailing, there being no objection on facts as regards commercial purpose, such question should not be allowed to be raised in the appeal for the first time.

 

We also take note of the contention as also explanation bringing in a change in the law.  In such circumstances, we are of the opinion the parties are to be granted opportunity to bring out the issue on facts as regards alleged commercial purpose.  Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.  We send back the matter to the Forum for disposal of the matter in accordance with law after granting opportunities to the parties to raise objection as indicated hereinabove, if required, by amendment of the pleadings and filing further evidence.  As the matter is pending for some time Forum is requested to dispose of the proceeding within a period of four months from the date of the order.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 09 June 2010

[HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI]PRESIDENT[MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER]Member[MR. SHANKAR COARI]Member