Rajendra Thacker v. President, State Consumer Disputes
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ss. 12, 13, 24(b)
Judgment
Ms. Sumedha Rao for the Petitioner. Mr. J. M. Bafna for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R. M. Sawant, Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.3. CORAM: DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. & S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : APRIL 6, 2005. P. C. : This petition has been moved by the petitioner, in which he has prayed that Circular laying down the procedure for filing 2 complaint and levying of court fees be set aside. Petitioner has erroneously mentioned `Instructions for filing Appeal' as Circular. Instructions for filing appeal are in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Sections 12, 13 and 24(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with comprehensive procedure and the rule 9A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 deals with the court fees. These instructions have been issued in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. We find no infirmity in the same. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- S. A. BOBDE, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — ss. 12, 13, 24(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 06 Apr 2005. The bench was S A BOBDE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.