| First Appeal No. A/12/564 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/10/2011 in Case No. 51/2007 of District DCF, South Mumbai) |
| | | | 1. MEHTA HARISH SUNDERLAL (SINCE DESEASED) | | THROUGH LEGAL HAIRS MR HEMAL MEHTA MAHAKOR VILA IIND FLOOR 69 BAZAR ROAD NARAINDAS DAYABHAY THAKKAR MARG BANDRA WEST MUMBAI - 400050 | | MUMBAI | | MAHARASHTRA | | 2. JAYSHREE MEHTA | | MAHAKOR VILA, IInd FLOOR, 69 BAZAR RD., NARAINDAS DAYABHAY THAKKAR MARG, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 | | 3. HEMAL MEHTA | | MAHAKOR VILA, IInd FLOOR, 69 BAZAR RD., NARAINDAS DAYABHAY THAKKAR MARG, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 | | 4. FALGUNI MATHEWS | | MAHAKOR VILA, IInd FLOOR, 69 BAZAR RD., NARAINDAS DAYABHAY THAKKAR MARG, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 | | 5. GILROY MATHEWS | | MAHAKOR VILA, IInd FLOOR, 69 BAZAR RD., NARAINDAS DAYABHAY THAKKAR MARG, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 | | 6. VEDIKA MATHEWS | | MAHAKOR VILA, IInd FLOOR, 69 BAZAR RD., NARAINDAS DAYABHAY THAKKAR MARG, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 | | 7. ROHAN MATHEWS | | MAHAKOR VILA, IInd FLOOR, 69 BAZAR RD., NARAINDAS DAYABHAY THAKKAR MARG, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. TRAVEL PORTS | | SRILANKAN AIR LINES LTD 311 A/B SHALIMAR MORYA PARK NEW LINK ROAD ANDHERI WEST MUMBAI - 400053 | | MUMBAI | | MAHARASHTRA | | 2. AIR LINES LTD. | | 12 VASWANI MANSION,2ND FLOOR,DINSHA VACHHA ROAD,CHURCHGATE,MUMBAI-400 020 |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | Per-Hon’ble Sou.Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member (1) None is present for the appellant. Appellant has failed to comply with the order dated 15/07/2013. Adv.Mikhail Dey appears for the respondent no.1. However, he has not filed vakalatnama for the respondent no.1. In absence of vakalatnama or letter of authority, he has no locus-standi to address the Commission. From the perusal of the order of the learned District Forum, it is clear that the order was against the respondent no.2. There was no direction against the respondent no.1. In the appeal, the respondent no.1 is a formal party. The appellant failed to take steps to serve notice in the appeal on the respondent no.2. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed against the respondent no.2 for want of prosecution. (2) It is not desirable to prolong the matter when the respondent no.1 is formal party and appellant is not appearing before this Commission. Hence, the total appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Pronounced on 23rd August, 2013. | |
