M/S DUDHAL ASSOCIATES Vs. SWATANTRA KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, a consumer complaint No. 166 of 2013 was filed before the State Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Dudhai Associates admitted that the petitioner was served in this case on 10.6.2013. On 9.7.2013, the State Commission passed the following order:

(2.) On 23.7.2013, the petitioner moved an application for adjournment. It was contended that settlement talks were going on between the complainants and the opposite parties. A further adjournment was prayed. On the same day, i.e. on 23.10.2013. The State Commission passed the following order :-

(3.) A bare perusal on record clearly goes to show that there is no inkling that negotiations for compromise were going on. Even learned counsel for the opponent no. 1 was not present. He appeared through his proxy counsel. On the contrary, the arguments on interim relief were heard and the interim relief was granted. No joint request was ever made in order to get the case adjourned. The petitioner wanted to procrastinate the proceedings for one reason or the other.