Om Prakash Ray Vs Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sambalpur And Another

Orissa High Court 19 Oct 2022 Writ Petition (C) No.20580 Of 2022
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition (C) No.20580 Of 2022

Hon'ble Bench

Arindam Sinha, J

Advocates

Mahendra Pratap Singh

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Judgement Text

Translate:

Arindam Sinha, J

1. Dr. Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He had moved the petition on 14th September, 2022. Order made that date is

reproduced below.

“1. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He files supplementary affidavit disclosing judgment dated 22nd August, 2022. He submits, the

writ petition was filed in anticipation of the judgment reserved. On it being delivered it be treated as impugned in the writ petition.

2. It appears the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed impugned judgment against opposite parties in the Commission, connected to Sahara

Universal Multipurpose Society Limited. The society was opposite party no.5 while petitioner, described as ‘Head Sahara Office’, was opposite party no.1.

3. Issue notice along with this order on the petition and supplementary affidavit, upon opposite party no.2 by registered/speed post with AD. Petitioner will put in

requisites.

4. List on 12th October, 2022. The I.A. will be considered on adjourned date.â€​

2. He submits, service has been duly made on opposite party no.2. Said opposite party goes unrepresented.

3. Dr. Singh refers to subsequently passed judgment dated 22nd August, 2022 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing, inter

alia, his client to pay maturity value Rs.4,40,000/- as on 11th September, 2011 to opposite party no.2 and 12% interest thereon till repayment. Further

directions were also made.

4. He submits, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is a matter relating to cooperative societies and does not come under

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. It appears from the judgment this contention of petitioner was dealt with under issue no.1. As such, there has been an adjudication. It cannot be said

that in the process petitioner was not heard. In the circumstances, remedy of appeal is provided to petitioner, under the statute.

6. There will be stay of operation of judgment dated 22nd August, 2022 in Consumer Case no.30 of 2022 till 11th November, 2022, within which time

petitioner may approach the appellate forum. This order will stand automatically vacated thereafter.

7. The writ petition is disposed of..

................................................

From The Blog
Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Read More
Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Read More