Gajendran
17 May 2015 at 22:35
This is Gajendran from Bangalore.
I had booked a Aquaguard genius worth Rs.22900/- on 10-04-2015 through online.
My customer 8000025347 & Transaction ID : 315134315 Amount was paid through online on the same day. My customer 8000025347 & Transaction ID : 315134315.
Before booking the sales executive from the Eureka frobes Smt.Fathima (Authorization Code A1001) had assured me that the product will be delivered within 07 days from the date of booking. But till date the product has not been supplied to me.
In this this connection I lodged a complaint to the Eureka Forbes customer care vide the complaint ID is 91716096 on 20-04-2015. There was no proper response from the company. After that I have contacted the customer care for every four days. And also I had sent a mail for non receipt of the product. But there is no proper response from the company neither the product has been delivered to me.
Later I cancelled the product vide Cancellation ID : 00208. But till today they have not returned money to me or non of the executives from the company are giving the status of my order nor cancellation details.
In this connection please any one guide me what is the next step to do legally.
Bharati Agarwal
17 May 2015 at 03:52
I bough a life insurance policy from private insurance company who has registered and HO at Banglore.The Policy was isued by Banglore.On its maturity a dispute had arisen and the insurance company had settle the dispute by entering into a settlement agreement.The agreement was prepared by the insurance company and the first party was Insurance company and myself as second party.All the paper work was done by the Branch Office.The stamp paper was bought from Jaipur(Rajasthan)ny Insurance company, typer by them and took my signature and took away the original agreement and I do not know who has signed it on company behalf and whether it was notarised, where or anything...but thereafter the dispute has arisen about payment and I am advised tofile a civil suit for recovery of amount.
The question Is:
that some advocte says that since the Registered & Ho of the company is at Banglore and the company operates with the policy holders from Banglore in all respect,(the Branch Offices all over India only canvass and market policy but policy is issued from Banglore)the suit has to be filed at Banglore,. whwereas some advocate says that as the Stamp Paper was bought from Jaipur and it belonged to Rajasthan, and it was signed by me at Jaipur only, I may file the suit at Jaipur and my suit would not face Jurisdiction issue if I file it at Jaipur.
Kindly advise about the right Jurisdiction Place please....
srinivasan
16 May 2015 at 12:50
1.sir in a portion suit filed by the daughters against brothers, both the parties come to settlement , with a compromise degree , the three daughter collectively take 30% and the rest 70% by the two brothers in the joint family partnership business now the daughter are requesting the brothers to make fresh agreement as per the compromise degree, they are denying to do so.
2. the business is ancillary unit BHEL the daughters do not want to appoint commissioner for selling the property/ business since it is family business.
3.the daughters have also issued a notice to the banker not to operate the current account with the old partnership agreement and enclosed the compromise degree, and also notice to BHEL requesting them to insist for fresh agreement as per the compromise degree bought of them as not taken any steps in this regard .
4.sir I request you to kindly guide us in what way we can put pressure on them ,to stall the business and the bank account. so that the agreement is done without selling the property
anantkumar
16 May 2015 at 11:51
Dear Sir
I had a Credit Card of HDFC Bank which was hakced twice.First time they
cancelled the transaction of Rs.19500 and issued me a new card which was also hacked
within 13 days and this time an amount of Rs.13757.21 was hacked on 13.01.2012
which i informed the bank instantly and got blocked my card.Both time card was in my
possession and it was hacked online.I wrote so many mails to the concerned persons but
everytime they had held me liable to pay that amount.
Then I filed a complaint in Banking Ombudsman on 17.05.2012 regarding that unauthorized transaction done through credit card in Belgium.As per order dated 16.08.2012,case was closed but they have included my name in CIBIL and few days back,I again received recovery calls from them.
Beacause of this,I am not able to get any loan/Credit Card from other Banks.
Please suggest what should I do remove my name from CIBIL.
Raj
16 May 2015 at 07:53
Sir,
My civil case for hearing was listed on 5 April 2015..and in the evening issues were framed we enquired about the order and we awere wrongly informed that no order was passed and order was not even uploaded on net but we came across through record cleark that order was passed and issues were settled and in the order 3 days time was given to furnish the list of witnesses failing which thee petitioner has to bring the witnesses at their own risk.since we are living in different city and next date of hearing is 29 may 2015 and we will be going on 21 may 2015.
can we file the application for issuing summoning of witnesses with explanation of delay?
one of the witnsess is very old person, can we specify in the lit that commission to be ordered under order 26 rule 2? or we should move in next date when the court admit the list of witnsses?
rajan chopra
15 May 2015 at 23:25
Sir in a recovery suit filed by me the defendant failed to file written statement after being served and given adequate opportunity.Now the case is at plaintif evidance stage.Can I apply for pronouncement of judgement u/o 8 R 10 cpc on the basis of non filing of written statement by defendant or not?
Member (Account Deleted)
15 May 2015 at 22:20
My client purchased a land from attorney of Xyz and the sale deed is registered..
Now xyz has filed a cr complaint against my client and others whereby he alleged that the signature of his attorney are forged..and yes it was..
(And against others is that they identified a wrong person before concerned authority)
Now there is a compromise between the two..and xyz agreed to withdraw the complaint against me and will continue against others..( i am not concerned about others)
Now what should i do to make that sale deed genuine and bonafide and how..or should i execute a subsecuent document..
(Not concerned about others but my client should get a better title over the property)
Member (Account Deleted)
15 May 2015 at 21:32
Is cancellation of sale deed possible..?
My client purchased a land in 2014 bonafidely from Mr.A..and got it registered in his name..
Now through a civil suit my client comes to know that Mr.A has already sold the same land to Mr.B in 2010 and that document is also registered..
Now there is a compromise between my client and the first buyer i.e. Mr.B regarding the same land and he agreed that my client should keep the land..
Now is there any way that i could nullify the sale deed of 2010 and make the sale deed executed in favour of my client as genuine n bonafide..
Plz its an urgent matter..kindly help..
Din Dayal
15 May 2015 at 21:18
A friend of mine expired recently leaving appx.5 lacs in his public provident fund account with Indiapost . The account matured earlier & is extended without fresh sub- scription.My friend has registered 3 nominees against this account(Wife,Son & Daughter). There is no will.My queries are -
1. As nominees live at different locations ,can they submit claims for payment of respective shares separately ? Indiapost is insisting that all nominees file claim together .This is not practical as one nominee is unable to come for next few months .Please advise correct rules. REGARDS
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Order 7 rule 11 s 151 of cpc
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 767 OF 2014
(From the order dated 03.05.2013 in Appeal No. 2072/2008 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh)
Lalit, S/o. Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o. Sadari Road, Baghana
District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh …. Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Sunil Jadhav, S/o. Sh. Harihar Rao Jadhav
R/o. 36, Shikshak Colony
Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh
2. Chief Municipal Corporation Officer
Municipal Corporation Council
Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh … Respondents
Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Thukral,
PRONOUNCED ON _3rd MARCH, 2014
ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. There is a delay of 170 days in filing the
revision petition. The Petitioner has explained the delay in para 2 of the application moved for
condonation of delay, which is reproduced, as follows:-
“2. That there is a delay of 153 days in filing
the aforesaid revision petition. The reason of delay is being that the
counsel of the petitioner Shri Parag Kale, Advocate did not inform the
petitioner about passing of impugned order dated 03.05.2013, whereby the
appeal of the respondent No.2 was dismissed and it was only on the
enquiry of the petitioner No.1 in the second week of August, 2013, that
the counsel informed the petitioner about passing of impugned order.
Thereafter, the petitioner collected the brief from Shri Parag Kale,
Advocate and engaged the present counsel and handed over the brief to
him on 31.08.2013, for filing the revision petition. But unfortunately, the car
of the counsel was stolen on 04.09.2013 from the District Court at
Faridabad and consequently, the counsel lost many files which were kept
in the dikki of the said car, including the file of the present matter. The
counsel, accordingly, informed the petitioner regarding loss of file on
12.09.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner took some time to collect the entire
documents and orders from District Forum and State Commission and he
again handed over the brief of the present matter to the counsel on
12.11.2013. The counsel then drafted the revision petition and sent it to
the petitioner at Neemuch (Madhya Pradesh) for vetting and signature. The
petitioner, after vetting, returned the matter to the counsel on 10.12.2013.
Thereafter, the counsel got the entire documents and orders translated
into English because all the documents and orders were in Hindi
Language and got the translation of the matter on 16.01.2014 and is
filing the same today”.
2. As a matter of fact, there is a delay of 170 days as per the report submitted by the
Registry. There is huge delay in filing the present revision petition and day-to-day delay has
not been explained. There is no plea or evidence that the petitioner had visited the office of his
counsel, Sh. Parag Kale to post himself about the next date of hearing. The car of the Advocate
was stolen on 04.08.2013, but he sent the information on 12.09.2013. The revision petition was
filed on 27.01.2014, knowing well that the case was going to be barred by limitation. The file
can be reconstructed, within a week. The duty of the Advocate is to inspect the record and he
can file even true copies of the record, for the time being. Everyday, the Advocates pray for
permission to file the certified copies after some period. That request is always allowed. There
is no cogent or
plausible reason which may prove the case of the petitioner.
3. The law has a crystalline clarity. The following authorities neatly dovetail this view. (1)
Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)
(2) R.B.Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) (3) Ram Lal &
Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 (4) Bikram Dass Vs. Financial
Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.
4. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay
was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in
time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to
lawyer’s office and enquired about the case. The statute also prescribes a time bound
programme regarding the deposit to be made.
5. Similar view was taken in two other cases, reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant
Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83 and Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila,
1997 (2)
Raj LW 845.
6. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant’s agent is
negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s.
Chawala & Co. Vs. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92.
7. The case is clearly barred by time.
8. Now, let us turn to the merits of this case. The complaint was filed by one, Dr.Sunil
Jadhav, against Chief Municipal Corporation Officer. The case was decreed in favour of
Dr.Sunil Jadhav and the Corporation was directed to allot land No.37 under Scheme No.30 in
the name of the complainant and the land was to be registered in the name of the
complainant, Dr.Sunil Jadhav, after receipt of the balance premium amount of Rs.3,20,771/-
and lease rent amount of Rs.1,603/- from the date of allotment, till 31.03.2007.
9. Aggrieved by this order, the Municipal Corporation Officer, Madhya Pradesh, preferred
an appeal before the State Commission. The petitioner, Sh.Lalit, moved an application for
impleadment as a party because he claimed that he was the owner of the said land.
However, the order of the District Forum discussed his case as well in its judgment. Paras
11, 12 & 13 of
the said order reads as follows:-
“11. The complainant had given his offer @ Rs.250.50 per sq.ft. and had
submitted the offer of Rs.2,45,000/- along with the tender, but the
opposite party allotted the land @ Rs.196 per sq.ft., to Lalit, S/o
Ghanshyam Dass, by not allotting the land to the complainant despite of
said tender and when the complainant took action in this regard with
the opposite party, then the opposite party gave an order for
cancellation of allotment of land No.37 to Lalit, S/o. Ghanshaym Dass
vide letter No. 13 dated 02.01.2008, along with the Collector’s order
No.82/RTC/07dated 25.10.2007 and resolution of special meeting of
council No.118 dated 23.11.2007. It is clear from this that the complainant
had submitted the tender with the opposite party @ Rs.250.50 per sq.ft.
Despite of this, Lalit, S/o Ghanshyam Dass was allotted the land No.37 @
Rs.196 per sq.ft., without participating in this tender and by doing this,
the opposite party, besides the
rendering of deficient service was negligent in
his duties.
12. When the complainant had submitted the tender for land @
Rs.250.50 per sq.ft., but after that the allotment of land illegally to any
other person @ Rs.196 per sq.ft., shows the corruption, besides the
negligence in duties by the opposite party and the opposite party had also
attempted to cause financial loss to the institution of public interest and
no information in respect of acceptance or rejection of his application for
land was given to a person of good intention who had given offer to
provide profit to the institution as per rule and he was devoid of right
information despite of repeated application given by him.
13. The opposite party had informed to the complainant through letter
dated 29.11.2007 that because of not receiving the note sheet after
opening the tender the information regarding acceptance or rejection of
tender could not be given. If the opposite party had allotted the land to
Lalit, S/o. Ghanshyam Dass, without tender, then the opposite party had
definitely managed to loss the tender file pertaining to complainant on the
fear of exposing of manipulation and irregularity done by the opposite
party. This type of activity shows the bad intention of opposite party and
it apparently seems that the
opposite party, intentionally, with an objective to gain other profits,
wanted to keep the
complainant, devoid of land”.
10. The State Commission also mentioned this fact, in para 6 of its order, as under :-
“On examining the matter, it is found that the tender submitted by the
respondent No.1/ complainant, was on the higher side and was only the
tender and by not accepting that, the appellant has rendered deficient
services and despite of making allotment of said land to other person, for
which, the respondent No.1 had submitted the tender, which was
cancelled by the appellant by order dated 27.11.2007, the intimation of
which, was sent to the Collector, Neemuch, through letter dated
01.04.2008, it appears that the said land can yet be allotted to the
respondent”.
11. The tender application, moved by the petitioner was rightly
dismissed by the State Commission. Moreover, this is a case of dispute between
two independent persons, it can be decided only
by the Civil Court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and the
same is dismissed at the time of its admission.
..…………………..………J
(J.M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER
Petitioner submitted a plaint with application order 39 rule 1 & 2 of S 151 cpc for stay against the execution of above said order kindly guide weather the case is maintainable or not? can I submit a application order 7 rule 11 S 151 of cps to reject the plaint or any other action