Written Notes of Argument on Admission Hearing in Consumer Case

 

District South 24 Parganas

Before the Hon'ble district Consumer Disputes Redressal   Forum, at bariupur South 24 parganas

                                                

                                                          Complaint Case no 41 of 2016

                                               In The Matter of :

                                                          Sri Malay Bhattacherjee ,

                                                                   ................Petitioner

                                                           Versus-

                                                          Sri Asit Kumar Mishra and Others

                                                                    ..................Opposite parties

 

Written notes of argument

on admission hearing

 

1) Since the petitioner running his grocery shop for his livelihood, through his proprietorship firm M/s. Triparna Traders and therefore he place his order of the grocery product on being came into the knowledge by the employee of the opposite parties. The petitioner is a consumer under section -2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act 1986.

2) That the petitioner made his advance payment of total values of goods ordered by him to the opposite parties. The opposite parties even after in receipt of such payment   did not deliver the goods ordered by the petitioner, therefore the opposite parties established their acts and deeds of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.

3) It is patient to state that at First the petitioner came into knowledge about the product and services of the opposite parties on the visit of their employee, who acknowledge about the product and services of the opposite parties to your petitioner at his grocery shop at Charial  Bazar, Budge Budge under the jurisdiction of Budge Budge police station, District South 24 Parganas.

Secondly,  your petitioner placed his order of grocery product to the opposite parties, only on visit of employee of the opposite parties at the shop of your petitioner at chorial bazar, budge budge, district South 24 Parganas.

Thirdly the payment of the value of the product which has been ordered by the petitioner to the opposite parties has been collected by the employee of the opposite parties on his visit at the shop of the petitioner at chorial bazar, budge budge, South 24 Parganas on several occasions.

Fourthly  the employee of the opposite parties visited to the shop of the petitioner at chorial bazar, budge budge South 24 Parganas on several occasion repeatedly and periodically and lastly on 9th day of July 2015 on his such visit, he acknowledge to the petitioner that the opposite parties refuse and neglect to deliver the goods to your petitioner and suggested to take legal recourses against the opposite parties.

                                             In view of the fact that the petitioner never visited the office of the opposite parties rather the employee of the opposite parties visited the shop of your petitioner who takes the order of goods, take the payment of total value of goods, visited the shop on several occasion and acknowledge on his last visit about the refusal and neglect in delivery of goods by the opposite parties, therefore all the acts and deeds pertaining of the opposite parties has been arises and cause of action in its totality   sustained at the shop of the petitioner at chorial bazar, budge budge, South 24 Parganas.

4) Sec 11(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, it speaks about the jurisdiction of the district forum as the cause of action wholly or in part arises, in the present case the fact remain shows the cause of action wholly arises in the district of South 24 Parganas, i.e. the shop of your petitioner at chorial bazar, budge budge, South 24 Parganas, therefore the present case is well within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Forum to adjudicate the present case, in the interest of administration of justice. 

5) This is the case where the petitioner in a consumer and consumer dispute and the cause of action wholly arises at the shop of the petitioner at chorial bazar, budge budge, South 24 Parganas, therefore this is a appropriate case for admission for adjudication, before the Hon'ble Forum.

  6) That the petitioner relied on TATA COFFEE LTD cases of NCDRC, NEW DELHI (RP NO 2475 to 2478 of 2010) decided on 7th March 2014, wherein THE four respondents had filed separate complain before The District Consumer Forum, Bellary, seeking refund and compensation against the revision petitioners. All four complains where allowed by the District Forum and appeals against them have been dismissed by the State Commission by a common order.

In brief as per Hon'ble NCDRC all four complainant are brothers and their complaints have arises from a single transaction of purchase of block board from the respondent. All four used the materials in their respective houses for making of furniture box type wardrobe, tv cabinet, dressing table and other furniture item. The block after sometime where found to be affected by borer infestation. They took up the matter with the vendor/ O.P but did not get appropriate response. Hence four different complain where filled before the District Forum Bellary with prayer for refund of cost and award of compensation.

In the above mentioned landmark decision Hon'ble NCDRC has been pleased to observe keeping in mind the essence of Section 11(c) of the consumer protection act 1986 that complainant purchased block boards for making furniture items -After some item block boards were found to be affected by borer intestation complaints filed at Bellary opposite party objected that there was a stipulation in purchase bill. Stating all disputes are subject to Bangalore jurisdiction. in this regard Hon'ble Court has been pleased to observe that goods where deliver in Bellary - Hence Jurisdiction lay with the District Forum Bellary. jurisdiction would lie with the District Forum where the cause of action has arises whether wholly or in part. In instance case the cause of action arise in Bellary, where the goods were physically received and utilized. Therefore District Forum Bellary has rightly exercised jurisdiction over the consumer complain because as per 11(c) of the C.P. Act considering the "Cause of action" District Forum Bellary has territorial Jurisdiction.

7) This case is a classic example of the length to which large commercial organisations can sometime go to deny the rightful claim of innocent consumer who repose their implicit trust in them, based on the reputations that they enjoy. yet at the moment of reckoning when the veneer peels away, the reputation on shows itself to be only an illusion the trust totally misplaced. What reveals itself is a powerful organization which consider that  it can do no wrong, books no opposition are consumer towards its action and inaction is ready to justify its action any which way, rises every conceivable objection before the Consumer Forum whether sound in law or not fair or unfair tries to confuse and compound the issue involve and to divert the attention of the juridical forums from the root of the matter prolongs the litigation and eventually tries out the consumer .It prefers to rise the speech of a simple consumer complain to that of a legal battle and to make large sums of money, often public money, to tight search unnecessary battles rather than accept  that it is not in tillable and settle the dispute in a just and fair manner. Consumer Forum which are expected to dispose consumer cases by the summary procedure are forced to follow in the footstep of civil court as multiple issues and objection are raised and once raised have invariable to be death with an adjudicated upon.

8)  Now we have to examine separately under clauses  (a), (b) and (c) of section 11(2) of the Consumer protection Act 1986, as whether the District Forum at Baruipur South 24 Parganas have territorial jurisdiction over the complaint.

Clause (a) : This clause has no application to the fact of the case as admittedly, not all the opposite party resize or carry on business or have a branch office at the District South 24 Parganas.

Clause (b) : This clause applies to the case where there are more opposite party than 1 and postulates that at least any one of them should, at the time of the institution of the complaint either actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business, or have a branch office or personally work for gain within the local limit of the Jurisdiction of the Forum where the complaint is instituted provided further that either permission o f the District Forum is obtained with reference to the opposite parties who are not actually and voluntarily residing or carrying on business or having a branch office or personally working for gain within the local limit of the Jurisdiction of the Forum where the complaint is instituted or they acquiesce in the institution of the complaint.

Clause (c) : Let us now consider clause (c) section 11(2) of the act and also see whether the clause of action In the complaint has arises party or wholly within the local limits of the territorial Jurisdiction of the District Forum at South 24 Parganas. It cannot be disputed can  a consumer Dispute Redressal  Forum is competent to entertain a consumer complaint even if only and infinite simile part of the clause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction. Now cause of action as is well known is a bundle of fact which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plain tiff are right to relief against the defendant.

9) In the case at hand the complaint who is a resident of South 24 Parganas placed his order for purchasing grocery product and made payment of the total value of goods to the opposite parties at his shop at Chorial bazaar, Budge budge, South 24 parganas, therefore the facts having cause of actions arises within the district South 24 Parganas, and the present complaint is maintainable having proper Jurisdiction under section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Through___________

Advocate for the Complainant, Date:17^th Day of May,2016, Place: Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.

Brief Notes of Argument on behalf of the Opposite Parties in Consumer Case

 

 

District : Kolkata ( Central ).

 

Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit – II, Kolkata ( Central ), at 8-B, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, 7^th Floor, Kolkata – 700 087.

 

                                                          CC / 220 / 2015.

 

                                                          In the matter of :

 

                                                          Shahajamal Molla,

___Complainant.

 

-          Versus –

 

Nirapada Maity, Managing Director, of M/s. United Cosmetics Manufacturing ( India ) Limited,

      

   ___Opposite Parties.

 

Brief notes of Argument

 

On behalf of the opposite Parties nos. 1, & 2.

 

 

 

FACT :

 

 

i)             The Complainant herein is an agent of the Opposite Parties, on his approach, and on proper verification, while the opposite Parties found that the Complainant is an agent of the other companies and dealing in the financial market of the state of West Bengal, the Opposite Parties authorized him as an agent of the Opposite Parties, and therefore the Opposite Parties are Principal and the Complainant is an agent of the said Principal.

 

ii)           The agency of Principal and agent exists between the Opposite Parties and the Complainant, as per provisions of the Indian Contract Act’ 1872.

 

iii)          The Chapter X, containing Section 182 to 238, of the Indian Contract Act’ 1872, regulated the status and relationship of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties herein.

 

iv)          The Complainant is not a Consumer as per provision of Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986.

 

v)            No Share Certificate has ever been issued in the name of the Complainant, herein, and therefore the Complainant is not an investor to the Opposite Parties herein, in any manner, whatsoever.

 

vi)          The Opposite Parties initiated the issues of Redeemable Preference Share Each of Rupees 100/- and amount paid up per Share Rupees 100/- .

 

vii)         No redemption dates has ever been approached for it’s materialization, and to act upon.

 

viii)       No Certificate holders has ever been approached for it’s materialization, and to act upon.

 

ix)          No Certificate Holder and or Investor has ever been approached to the Hon’ble Forum, against the Opposite Parties with any claim and or cause thereof, more particularly in the present proceeding.

 

x)            The Complainant being an agent of the Opposite Parties, approached for a persona Loan, and thereby the Opposite Parties issued two Cheques being (i) Cheque no. 441218, dated 12-02-2015, for Rs. 1,05,500/- and (ii) Cheque no. 441217, dated 20-01-2015, for Rs. 84,000/- only, totaling as of Rs. 1,89,500/- ( Rupees One Lakh and Eighty Nine Thousand and Five Hundred ) only, towards grant of Loan amount to the Complainant, which unfortunately dishonoured due to mismanagement of the Banks’ account by the Opposite Parties.

 

xi)          There is no cause of action and or Deficiency in Services, and or unfair Trade Practices, on the Part of the Opposite Parties.

 

xii)        The purported disputes is not a Consumer Disputes and therefore ousted from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to decide such disputes, if any.

 

 

SUBMISSION :

 

The Complainant is not an Investor to the Opposite Parties / Respondents. The Complainant is an agent of the Opposite Parties, and the Opposite Parties is not a financial investing Company rather the Company take money from Public at Large as per SEBI regulation and enlistment. The Complainant did not invest any money with the Respondents, and therefore no Share Certificates has ever been issued in the name of Complainant, herein.

 

No Share Certificate has ever been shown and or attached which attain the date of maturity, and more particularly no investors and or Share Certificate Holder has ever been approached to the Opposite Parties / Respondents and or to the Hon’ble Forum, in the present proceeding.

 

The respondents are not in any receipt of the purported Letter as stated by the Complainant herein, and the purported cheques has never been issued towards the maturity amount as allegedly described by the complainant herein, rather the said two cheques were issued on demand of a personal loan of the Complainant, being the agent of the Respondents / Opposite Parties.

The Complainant approached his grievances before the Learned Metropolital Magistrate, at Kolkata,

 

The respondents are victim of the purported alleged allegations and wrongful demand, the respondents thereby seeking compensation as of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh ) only, for harassment and mental anxiety, arising from the institution of the present proceeding by the complainant, before the Hon’ble Forum.

 

The Complaint is false, frivolus and vexatious and has been filed with the mala fide intention, and as such deserves to be dismissed with special costs

 

The present complaint should be dismissed at once in terms of the provisions of Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, as the same is found frivolous and vexatious one.

 

 

 

Through _____________

 

 

Advocate for the Opposite Parties,

Date : 6^th day of May’ 2016.

Stay application in Consumer Case

 

District : South 24 Parganas.

Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Baruipur South 24 Parganas.

 

                                                                   CC / 118 / 2015.

 

                                                                   In the matter of :

 

                                                                   Shri Pijush Kanti Gayen,

                                                                             _________Complainant.

-      Versus –

 

M/s. Bindhachal Construction and Others.

          ______Opposite Parties.

 

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF THE PROCEEDING

BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.8

 

The humble petition on behalf of the Opposite Party no. 8, Shri Subhasish Mandal, most respectfully;

Sheweth as under :

 

1.   That on the earlier occasion i.e. 20-04-2016, the Hon’ble Forum, passed the necessary order thereby rejecting the application for vacating exparte order against the opposite party no.8, herein, and consequently do not accept the Written Version of the Opposite Party no.8, herein, vide Order dated 20-04-2016.

 

2.   That Being aggrieved with the Order dated 20-04-2016, passed by the Hon’ble Forum, in CC/118/2015, the opposite party no.8, herein preferred one Revision application being no. RP/71/2016, before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, and whereas on 25-04-2016, the said revision application was taken up for hearing by the Hon’ble State Commission, and upon necessary hearing the Hon’ble State Commission, was pleased to admit the revision application and stayed the proceeding being CC/118/2015, pending before the Hon’ble Forum, till the next date in the said revision application as on 13-07-2016.

 

3.   That in view of the facts of the Order dated 25-04-2016, in RP/71/2016, the proceeding being CC/118/2015, pending before this Hon’ble Forum, has been stayed, by the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal.

 

4.   That this application is made bonafide in the interest of administration of justice.

It is therefore prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to allow this application and stayed the proceeding being CC/118/2015, in view of the directions and order dated 25-04-2016, passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in RP/71/2016, in the interest of administration of justice, and or to pass such other necessary order or orders as your Honour may, deem, fit and proper for the end of justice.

 

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner, as in duty bound shall ever pray.

Verification

 

I, Sri Subhasish Mandal, being the Opposite Party no. 8, in the instant Complaint matter, states that I am well conversant with all the material facts and circumstances as stated in the foregoing paragraphs of my application and I am  well acquainted thereto. And I verify and sign this application, as on _______________2016, at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.

 

 

The Opposite Party no.8.

 

Identified by me,

 

Advocate.

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

Advocate.

Dated : _______________________2016.

Place : Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A F F I D A V I T

 

I Shri Subhasish Mandal, Son of Sri Mahadev Mandal, by faith Hindu, Indian, by occupation Business, aged about _______ years, residing at premises being no. B-1/5, 002, Prantik, Peerless Housing Society, Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700 150, Police Station Sonarpur, District – South 24 Parganas, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows :

 

1.   That I being the Opposite Party no.8, in the instant case being filed by the Complainant  and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the said case.

                                This is true to my knowledge.

 

2.   That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to __________of my petition are true to the best of  my knowledge and belief and the rests are my humble submissions before your Honour’s Forum.

 

 

 

D E P O N E N T

 Identified by me

 

Advocate.

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

Advocate.

Date : _________________________2016.

Place : Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.

 

N O T A R Y

 

 

 

Written notes of Argument on exparte vacating petition in Consumer Case

 

District : South 24 Parganas

Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.

 

                                      CC / 118 / 2015

 

                                                          In the matter of :

                                                          Pijush Kanti Gayen

                                                                             _________Complainant

-      Versus –

Bindhachal Construction, and others.

                   __________Respondents

 

Written Notes of Argument

On petition for vacating exparte order

Facts :

 

1.   On 14-03-2016, the Hon’ble Forum passed the following Orders as “Today is fixed for S.R. all the O.Ps. But it appears that case is being proceeded exparte against the O..P. nos. 1 to 7 but complainant has filed one application for amendment to insert the name of O.P. 8 that is why after allowing the said prayer for amendment we have inserted the name of Subhasish Mondal who is a necessary party in this case. So, the S/R was served to Subhasish Mondal but he did not appear. Accordingly case will run against Subhasish Moncal in exparte. It appears that O.P. nos. 2 to 7 file one application for allowing them to file written version which is supported by Vokalatnama. In view of the reported Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal NO. 8155 A 2001 as well as Hon’ble State Commissio0n under section 22 A of the C.P. Act, this Forum or Bench has no power to review its own order, that is why, exparte order which is running against O.P. nos 1 to 7 cannot be allowed to file any written version and after carefully studying the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that only Hon’ble National Commission has power to review the same and in a similar case of Hon’ble State Commission also expressed their views that they have no power, that is why prayer of the O.P. nos. 2 to 7 cannot be accepted at this stage for want of power in view of Section 22 A of the C.P. Act as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as hon’ble State Commission. Now we find that complainant has filed one application under section 13 (3B) of the C.P. Act, with an apprehension that property in dispute may be transferred to the third party in collusion with the O.P. now. 2 to 7. This application is supported by an affidavit. We have nothing to disbelieve the prayer as unfolded under section 13(3B) of the C.P. Act and the Hon’ble Legislature has introduced the said Act only to protect the interest of the Consumer at large by the hands of the unruly O.Ps/developers. Here in the instant case we find that it is the proper time to invoke the power, that is why, let there be an interim order restraining the O.P. nos . 1 to 8 and there men and agents not to transfer the schedule property to any third party fixing 18/04/2016 for exparte evidence and argument , if possible along with petition under section 13 (3B) of the C.P. Act.”

 

2.   That the O.P. no. 8, was not in knowledge of the present proceeding as he was not in receipt of the notice has ever served by the Hon’ble Forum.

 

3.   That the O.P. no. 8, as soon as came into knowledge of the present proceeding from the mouth of the other opposite parties, he took all necessary endavour to submit his written version, and place necessary applications in the present proceeding before the Hon’ble Forum, in the interest of administration of justice.

 

 

4.   That this is much necessary in the interest of equity and substantial justice to vacate the exparte order against the O.P. no. 8, herein, in the interest of administration of justice.

 

5.   That the O.P. no.8, filed and submitted his Written version, a petition for vacating exparte order against him, and one misc. application on maintainability, in the present proceeding, before the Hon’ble Forum.

 

Judicial references as discussed by the Hon’ble Forum :

 

“ In view of the reported Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal NO. 8155 A 2001 as well as Hon’ble State Commissio0n under section 22 A of the C.P. Act, this Forum or Bench has no power to review its own order, that is why, exparte order which is running against O.P. nos 1 to 7 cannot be allowed to file any written version and after carefully studying the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that only Hon’ble National Commission has power to review the same and in a similar case of Hon’ble State Commission also expressed their views that they have no power, that is why prayer of the O.P. nos. 2 to 7 cannot be accepted at this stage for want of power in view of Section 22 A of the C.P. Act as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as hon’ble State Commission.”

 

Discussion of Judicial References :

1.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & ors Vs. Bombay Hospital Trust, reported in III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC), held that the State Commission has no powers to set aside an exprte order as there is no provision in the Act.

 

2.    Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its decision rendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. R. Srinivasan , reported in I (2000) CPJ 19 (SC) has held that inherent power is vested upon the Commission to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for non-appearance of the complainant.

 

3.    Subsequently in the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathan and others Vs. Achyut Kashinath karekar and another  reported in 2007 CTJ 1123 (Supreme Court ) (CP) took a view that when the matter was decided in R. Srinivasan’s case, the bench was not appraised of the earlier decision rendered in  Jyotsana’s case, and accordingly the matter was referred to a larger bench and the matter is still pending.

 

4.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in an identical case.   The Apex court in Grindlays Bank Ltd., Vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors. Reported in 1981 L.I.C 155 = AIR 1981 SC 606 = 1980 Supp. SCC 420 in para 6, has held as follows:

 

“We are of the opinion that the Tribunal had the power to pass the impugned order if it thought fit in the interest of justice.  It is true that there is no express provision in the Act or the rules framed thereunder giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to do so.  But it is a well-known rule of statutory construction that a Tribunal or body should be considered to be endowed with such ancillary or incidental powers as are necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties.  In a case of this nature, we are of the view that the Tribunal should be considered as invested with such incidental or ancillary powers there is any indication in the statute to the contrary”.  We do not find any such statutory prohibition.  On the  other hand, there are indications to the contrary.”

 

          It is also observed in para 14 as follows:

 

          “There is no finality attached to an exparte award because it is always subject to its being set aside on sufficient cause being shows.”

 

5.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Srinivasan’s case clearly proceeds to the effect that the power is vested upon the Consumer Fora under the inherent jurisdiction, until a categorical finding is rendered by the larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  the later decision has to be applied by all the District Fora.

 

6.    The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, presented by Hon’ble Justice N. Kannadasan, President, and Hon’ble Member Thiru Pon Gunasekaran, held in suo moto reference : Case 1 / 2008 under Section 24(B) (i) (ii) read with Section 24(B) (II), application by the Madras Consumer Courts Bar Association, as “Prior to 1993, there was no specific provision in the CP Act, with regard to the period of limitation.  Only by Act 50 of 1993, Sec. 24(A) was introduced, wherein a period of two years limitation is prescribed for filing a complaint.  In a given case, if a complaint is dismissed for default, after a period of 2 years from the date of its institution, if the power for restoration is not granted even where sufficient cause is shown, the complainant would not be in a position to file the 2^nd complaint.  In such situation, even if a genuine grievance exists for litigant, due to unforeseen reasons, he will not be in a position to seek remedy. When the Rules framed under the Act, views an express power in dismissing the case on default, when the litigant comes forward to show sufficient cause with a an impeccable reasons for his non-appearance, whether redressal agencies would be helpless in the matter or to repeat the words of Lord Denning that it must fold their hands and deny redress, where it is patently due.  In our opinion, we are of the view that refusal to restore even when sufficient good cause is shown, would be a patent miscarriage of justice.  It is only under the said larger principle, the legislature incorporated the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code for a restoration of a suit or appeal.  Eventhough those provisions instricto-sensu are not at all attracted to the consumer jurisdiction, the principles underlying then would be equally attracted for granting redress, in a manifest situation requiring restoration of the lis.  Even otherwise, when the later decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Srinivasan’s case clearly proceeds to the effect that the power is vested upon the Consumer Fora under the inherent jurisdiction, until a categorical finding is rendered by the larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  the later decision has to be applied by all the District Fora.

In the light of the above discussions, we answer the references as follows: 

1.                  The District Forum has got power to restore the complaint which was dismissed for default.

 2.                  The District Forum has got power to set aside the exparte order setting the opposite party exparte.  If a final order is passed on merits, the District Forum has no power to set aside the said decision which is passed on merits.

          The Suo moto reference is disposed of in the above terms.”

Conclusion :

The present petition for vacating exparte order against the Opposite Party no.8, should be allowed in terms of the above discussions and judicial references relied on, in the interest of administration of justice, keeping in mind the words of Lord Denning that it must fold their hands and deny redress, where it is patently due.

Through _______________

 

Advocate for the Opposite Party no.8.

Date : 18^th day of April’ 2016.

Place : Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.