Dismissed

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Benny P.L.

Kerala HC4 Nov 2014WP(C)/474/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Writ Petitions challenging an interim order of inspection by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idikki. The Court held there is no ground for interference without hearing and opined that challenging the forum president's alleged bias was unnecessary, dismissing the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petitions are disposed of with no directions given.

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs Benny P.L. — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/13TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 474 of 2014 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD., 39/4013, OFFICE A, 8TH FLOOR, K.G.OXFORD BUSINESS CENTRE, SREEKANDATH ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL HEAD (TECHNICAL SERVICES) MR.M.A.JOSEPH.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. BENNY P.L., S/O.LUKA, POONTHURUTHIYIL HOUSE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., CHERUTHONY, IDUKKI-685 602.

¶11

2. THE PROPRIETOR, MANAYATHUMARIYIL HARDWARES, PAIGOTTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3. CHAIRMAN & CEO, ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD., HEAD QUARTERS, ADITYA BIRLA CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR, SK AHIRE MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI.

¶13

4. CHIEF MARKETING OFFICER, ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. (HO), 'B' WING, IIND FLOOR, AHURA CENTRE, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2014, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.6479 OF 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 474 of 2014 (H)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22-05-2013.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION ALONG WITH THE OBJECTION DATED 15-06-2013.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20-08-2013.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09-11-2013.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A. 126/2013 DATED 15-11-2013. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A. 126/2013 DATED 12-12-2013. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-12-2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2013.

¶26

EXHIBIT P8 (IN I.A.NO.180/2014) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.126/2013 IN C.C.NO.183/2013 DATED 20.11.2013 OF THE HON'BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM IDUKKI.

¶27

EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE FRESH COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.183/2013 OF THE HON'BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM IDUKKI.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶34

=========================

¶35

W.P(C).Nos.474 and 6479 of 2014

¶36

============================ Dated this the 04^th day of November, 2014

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioners approached this Court challenging the interim order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki. This interim order is passed to inspect the disputed cement and ascertain the matters mentioned in the commission application. Petitioners also raised certain allegations against the President of the forum. Petitioners also challenged jurisdiction of the forum in passing Ext.P8 order.

¶39

According to the petitioners, Ext.P8 order is not served on them. The appointment of an expert Commissioner is to obtain a piece of evidence in proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. If the evidence is obtained without hearing, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners unless the petitioners demonstrates the manner in which the evidence taken has caused prejudice to them. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to raise their objection regarding prejudice that will be resulted on account of obtaining certain piece of evidence. These are matters petitioners can place before the forum. I am sure, if the petitioners raise such objection before the forum, forum will advert to the objection of

¶40

W.P(C).Nos.474 and 6479 of 2014

¶41

¶42

the petitioners. Further, invoking Art.226 of the Constitution, this Court is not expected to interfere with any proceedings of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum which has not attained finality. The petitioners can also challenge the interim order along with the final order if the final order is passed adversely against them. Petitioners have an alternative remedy before the Consumer State Commission. Petitioners allegation is that President of the forum is biased against them. Learned Senior Counsel for the President submits that President is due to retirement on 23.12.2014. Though, there is nothing on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioners. However in the interest of justice, the forum shall take up the matter after the retirement of the President.

¶43

The Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶46

Sbna/05/11/14

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Benny P.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Benny P.L.

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

T.Thomas Abraham Vs Village Officer

Amretha Motors Pvt.Ltd Vs National Small Industreis Corpn.

Zenana Mission Lower Primary School Vs District Collector,Thrissur

Vasudevan Pillai Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Consumer Disputes Redressal

Sugunan Vs Sub Registrar, Kattoor Sub Registry