Revisional application sought striking out of two interlocutory applications in a pending consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The court held it could not entertain such a prayer under Article 227 and dismissed the revisional application, none appearing for the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
14.03.2024 Item No.15 RP Ct. No.7
CO 3390 of 2023
Madan Kumar Goel Vs.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revisional application under Article 227 can seek striking out of applications pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madan Kumar Goel
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
