Disposed

Sushma Rajesh Junagade and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Feb 2019WP/2108/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a District Consumer Forum order was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the State Commission. In the interim, execution was stayed for two weeks. Contentions remain open.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the State Commission; execution of impugned order stayed for two weeks.

Sushma Rajesh Junagade and Another Vs the State of… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp2108.19

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2108 OF 2019

¶5

Smt. Sushama W/o Rajesh Junagade and anr.

¶6

..PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶9

..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr Jain V.R. (Kamboj), Advocate for petitioner; Mr K.N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondent no.1

¶11

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶12

S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 15^th February, 2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶16

On perusal of the documents placed on record we find that the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon, dated 20th October, 2018. Though the learned Counsel submitted before us that the Dispute was pending for a considerable long period and the District Consumer Forum failed to consider the relevant aspects of the matter and even considering these submissions we were of the opinion that when there is a specific remedy available under the Consumers Protection Act for the

¶17

wp2108.19

¶18

(2)

¶19

petitioners to challenge the order of the District Consumer Forum before the State Commission by taking up appropriate proceedings, we were not inclined to entertain the petition. The learned Counsel then prayed for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to avail the appropriate remedies. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶20

Learned Counsel submits that in view of the order of the District Consumer Forum, the petitioners are faced with issuance of warrant and if the protection is not granted to them till the period they approach the State Commission, a serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.

¶21

In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel, the order of

¶22

the District Consumer Forum is stayed only for a period of two weeks

¶23

from today. No further extension would be granted on any count.

¶24

All contentions are kept open.

¶25

(S.M. GAVHANE, J.)

¶26

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶27

amj

Sushma Rajesh Junagade and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Rajesh Junagade and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Babanrao Rao and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pathan Musaveer Khan Baktiyar Khan Vs Maharashtra University of Health Science Nashik Though Registrar and Others

Dushyant Harishchandra Mate Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Its Chief Area Manager and Another

Chandrashekhar Pandurang Holkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivam Ramlu Bukkawar through Ramlu Shankarrao Bukkawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Supriya Babanrao Totawar Under Guardian Babanrao Govindrao Totawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another