Allowed

Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudesh Udaywar

Bombay HC28 Sept 2016WP/2940/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, via Writ Petition No. 2940 of 2015, quashed orders of the District Consumer Forum that denied petitioners a chance to file a questionnaire. Finding a sufficient cause for the delay, the Court directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 15,000 as costs, after which the Forum must record the questionnaire.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; petitioners directed to pay Rs. 15,000 costs within one week; Consumer Forum to record questionnaire on next date.

Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Sudesh Udaywar — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 2940.15.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2940 OF 2015

¶6

Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt.Ltd. and anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Sudesh Udaywar .. Respondent

¶7

Mr.Rajiv Narula i/b J.Narula & Associates, for the Petitioners. Mr.G.S.Patil, for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 28^th SEPTEMBER, 2016

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. Parties through their Counsel.

¶11

By filing this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31/07/2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum in Complaint No. 342 of 2003 whereby the District Consumer Forum had refused to review the order dated 07/11/2014 whereby the respondents – petitioners herein have been denied the opportunity to file questionnaire.

¶12

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the petitioners for

¶13

1/2

¶14

wp 2940.15.doc

¶15

not filing the questionnaire within the time earlier fixed by the Consumer Forum and in the circumstances, the Consumer Forum ought to have allowed the petitioners to file the questionnaire which was ready and was actually tried to be tendered on that date. By not doing so, the Consumer Forum has denied the fair opportunity to defend to the petitioners and thereby acted in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶16

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed, but keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were not vigilant in filing the questionnaire within the time specified by the Consumer Forum, we direct the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent-herein within one week. On payment of such cost, the Consumer Forum to take the questionnaire on record on the next date of hearing and then proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

¶17

The Petition is disposed of.

¶18

( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR, J.)

¶19

2/2

Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudesh Udaywar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudesh Udaywar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chitra Anant Salunke Vs the Principal and 4 Ors.

Dr. Nanaji Ravaji Kapadnis Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Smt. Waghmare Rupali Satyawan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Edu. (Primary and Sports) and Ors.

Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan Vs All India Council for Technical Education and 2 Ors.

The Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Ganesh Bharat Pawar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.