Disposed

Mr Ashish Mittal v. Sri K M Umesh @ K M Umeshwaraiah

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022WP/16031/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that a litigant cannot maintain two independent proceedings for the same relief. It directed the Consumer Commission to promptly decide the petitioner's pending interlocutory application to quash proceedings against him rather than adjudicating the writ petition. (120 words)

What did the court decide?

Directed the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to dispose of the interlocutory application seeking dismissal of the consumer complaint expeditiously.

Mr Ashish Mittal Vs Sri K M Umesh @ K M Umeshwaraiah — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.16031/2022 (GM-CON)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR ASHISH MITTAL S/O SITARAM MITTAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, CONSULTANT, 3SHAPE #A-1402, VENEZIA, LORRA FLORENZA HAVING OFFICE AT: W.E HIGHWAY ADJ, HUB MALL, GOREGAON EAST, MUMBAI – 400063.

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI A.M.SHODHAN BABU, ADV.)

¶13

AND: 1. SRI K M UMESH @ K M UMESHWARAIAH S/O LATE K M BASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT: #21, 13^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, SARAKKI VILLAGE, AJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560078. ALSO AT DVG’S DENTAL LAB, J P NAGAR 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE – 560078.

¶14

¶15

ALSO AT DIGITAL DENTAL DESIGN CLINIC AT ULSOOR BANGALORE - 560008

¶16

M/S UNICORN DENMART LTD., PLOT NO 410, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SECTOR-53, EPIP, HSIIDC KUNDALI, SONEPAT - 131001 (HARYANA) REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR SHAMMI GUMBIR

¶17

MR AKSHATH GAMBIR M/S UNICORN DENMART LTD., PLOT NO. 410, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SECTOR-53, EPIP, HSIIDC KUNDALI, SONEPAT - 131001 (HARYANA)

¶18

MR SUDEEP MATHAROO MARKETING MANAGER M/S UNICORN DENMART LTD., PLOT NO.410, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SECTOR-53, EPIP, HSIIDC KUNDALI, SONEPAT - 131001 (HARYANA)

¶19

MR REDDAPPA MACHINE SERVICE ENGINEER, FOR 3-D PRINTER M/S UNICORN DENMART LTD., PLOT NO.410, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SECTOR-53, EPIP, HSIIDC KUNDALI, SONEPAT - 131001 (HARYANA)

¶20

MR MANOJ MARKETING MANAGER, M/S UNICORN DENMART LTD., PLOT NO.410, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SECTOR-53,

¶21

¶22

EPIP, HSIIDC KUNDALI, SONEPAT - 131001 (HARYANA)

¶23

MR BANDEEP BAJWAL MARKETING MANAGER, M/S UNICORN DENMART LTD., PLOT NO.410, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SECTOR-53, EPIP, HSIIDC KUNDALI, SONEPAT - 131001 (HARYANA)

¶24

MR ASHITOSH SHRIVASTAVA MARKETING MANAGER, M/S UNICORN DENMART LTD., PLOT NO.410, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SECTOR-53, EPIP, HSIIDC KUNDALI, SONEPAT - 131001 (HARYANA)

¶25

MR SURESH G MARKETING MANAGER, M/S UNICORN DENMART LTD., PLOT NO.410, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SECTOR-53, EPIP, HSIIDC KUNDALI, SONEPAT - 131001 (HARYANA) ALSO AT NO.95, FLAT NO.4, FIRST FLOOR FRAZER TOWN, MOSQUE ROAD, ABOVE J AND K BANK, BANGALORE 560005 10. MR DINESH CHANDEL MARKETING MANAGER, M/S UNICORN DENMART LTD., PLOT NO.410, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SECTOR-53, EPIP, HSIIDC KUNDALI, SONEPAT - 131001 (HARYANA)

¶26

... RESPONDENTS

¶27

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DISMISS THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT 14/2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BENGALURU, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN (ANNEXURE-A) ETC.

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “PRELIMINARY HEARING” THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the non-consideration of interlocutory application preferred on 04.01.2022 seeking dismissal of the complaint as against respondent No.2 therein i.e., the instant petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is no way connected with respondent No.1 company therein – and that the petitioner is associated and is an employee of the Company based in Denmark and which supplies medical equipments to respondent No.1 - company and through whom sales are conducted and in that view of the matter, it is prayed that therebeing no privity of contract between instant petitioner and the complainant, the writ petition be

¶33

¶34

allowed and proceedings be quashed insofar as it relates to petitioner/respondent No.2 therein.

¶35

It is seen that the petitioner has already made a

¶36

similar application before the Tribunal and the same is pending. A copy of the order sheet dated 04.01.2022 is also produced along with the writ petition, which reflects the pendency of the application.

¶37

On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit and affirm the pendency of the application. A litigant cannot be permitted to maintain two independent proceedings before different court/forums for the same reliefs. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition could be disposed of by directing the said Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru to consider and dispose of the interlocutory application preferred by respondent No.2 therein/petitioner herein on 04.01.2022 in Complaint No.14/2021 as expeditiously as possible.

¶38

¶39

We request the Commission to consider and dispose of the application within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or before the commencement of the trial, whichever is earlier.

¶40

The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

dn/CT-HR

Mr Ashish Mittal v. Sri K M Umesh @ K M Umeshwaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ashish Mittal v. Sri K M Umesh @ K M Umeshwaraiah

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

Sri Venkatesh M Inamdar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr T Shivananjappa Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sri P S Suresh

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt T v Vijaya

Sri C Badarinath Vs the State of Karnataka