Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
BRANCH MANAGER, SUDARSAN CHITS (INDIA) LTD. V/S P. VISWAN ?VISHNU PRASAD?, decided on Tuesday, December 3, 2002.
[ In the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram, Appeal No. 970 of 1999. ] 03/12/2002
Judge(s) : T.M. HASSAN PILLAI, PRESIDENT, PROF. R. VIJAYA KRISHNAN, MEMBER & A. RADHA, MEMBER
Advocate(s) : Gireesh Babu, R.S. Jayakrishnan. None.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  K. Radha Krishnan, I.P.S. (Retd.), & Others Versus Karnataka Consumers Forum (Regd.) & Others,   23/09/2011.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2004 (4) CPJ 281"  ==   ""  







    T.M. Hassan Pillai President:1. Heard.When this appeal came up for hearing today the only contention urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in CMPs : 2098 2099 2100 3914 4063 4064 and 4065/1990 the Forum below is not justified in passing the impugned order directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2 000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of passing the impugned order from 30.7.1999.2. There is force in the submission. The Hon’ble High Court held in CMP No. 2098/1990 in MFA 518/1981 that the authorities constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to consider the claims of the creditors of the companies which are being wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and it is not in dispute that complainant/respondent herein is one of the creditors of the appellant company which is being wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. The only ground for passing the impugned order by the Forum below is that the Hon’ble High Court has permitted the appellant company to proceed with its business even though liquidation proceedings are pending. The impugned order is not sustainable in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CMP Nos. 2098 2099 2100 3914 4063 4064 and 4065/1990 in MFA No. 518/1981 that authorities constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to consider the claim of creditors of the appellant company which is being wound up under the provisions of Companies Act 1956 therefore the only course open to us is to set aside the order passed by the Forum below.In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Forum below is set aside.