VIJAY SHANKAR Vs. MANDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REQUEST on behalf of the respondents for adjournment is declined. This matter was adjourned from 17.5.2002 to 9.9.2002. No reason has been given as to what personal difficulty the Counsel experienced and why no alternative arrangement has been made. As a matter of fact, we find on one date as many as three Advocates appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is the complainant who is petitioner before us. His complaint for alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Tata Donnelly Ltd. (formally known as Tata Press Ltd.) was dismissed by the District Forum on the grounds, (i) complaint barred by limitation and (ii) it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.

(3.) COMPLAINANT said he was a retired Director of the Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and had started profession of Placement and Management Consultancy Service in the name of AVA Consultants and Advertisers. He impleaded three opposite parties namely; (i) Mandeep Singh, DGM Operation; (ii) Tata Donnelly Ltd., Hoshang Billimoria, Managing Director; and (iii) Tata Donnelly Ltd. We find both Mandeep Singh, DGM Operation, Tata Donnelly Ltd. and Mr. Hoshang Billimoria, Managing Director, Tata Donnelly Ltd. are neither necessary nor proper parties in the complaint. The only concerned opposite party is Tata Donnelly Ltd. (formerly Tata Press Ltd.) against whom alleged deficiency in service was mentioned. Hereinafter opposite party-respondent will mean Tata Donnelly Ltd. (for short the 'Press').