Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/166/2017

The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India & 2 ors - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRC Projects Private Ltd., Chief Executive, M.Paramasivam - Opp.Party(s)

J.Pothiraj

30 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH                                             JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                          MEMBER

 

F. A. No.166/2017

 

(Against the Order dt.14.02.2017 made in C.C. No.44/2013 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Salem)

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Madam Cama Road,

Mumbai – 400 021.

 

2. The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Srirangapalayam Branch,

Ramakrishna Road,

Salem – 636 007.

 

3. The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

No.310, Sipcot Staff Housing Colony,

Mookandapalli – 635 126,

Hosur,

Krishnagiri District.                                                 .. Appellants / Opposite parties.

-Versus-

SRC Projects Private Limited,

M. Paramasivam,

Chief Executive,

No.4 B, Gandhi Road,

Lakshmipuram,

Salem – 636 007.                                                           .. Respondent / Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants / Opposite parties     : M/s. J. Pothiraj

Counsel for Respondent / Complainant        : M/s. J. Ranjani Devi

          This appeal coming up before us on 30.03.2022 for appearance of appellant and for filing written argument of appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for appellant.   Respondent present.  This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant, for filing written argument of appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the Appellant was not present.  Hence, passed over and called again at 12.00 Noon. still, there is no representation for the appellant.  Hence we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is of no use as the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default.   No order as to costs.

 

               

                  Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                            Sd/-

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                S. KARUPPIAH                               R.SUBBIAH

            MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT