Pratap Ramanathan and Another Vs. the Manager Indian Bank Asiad Colony Branch and Another

Pratap Ramanathan and Another vs The Manager Indian Bank Asiad Colony Branch and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai Decided Apr 20, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1109593

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1109593
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Judge: Honourable Thiru Justice M. Thanikachalam President &Amp; Thiru S. Sambandam, Member II
Decided On: Apr 20, 2011
Case Number: F.A.Sr.NO.379/2011 (Against order in M.P.No.150/2010 in C.C.NO.7/2010 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai)
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pratap Ramanathan and Another

Respondent

The Manager Indian Bank Asiad Colony Branch and Another

Excerpt

..... 1. heard. the petitioner, as complainant, has filed a case before the district forum, madurai, against two opposite parties, against whom cause of action had arisen, who are admittedly residing at chennai, impleading a formal party 3rd opposite party, a branch office, at madurai, with whom no connection. the district forum, as per the decision rendered by the supreme court, reported in 2010 ctj 2 (supreme court) (cp), which was communicated by this commission, to all the district forum, as well considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has come to the conclusion, even as per the averment in the, complaint no part of cause of action had arisen at madurai, where the complainant sought to file the case, impleading the branch office, vesting jurisdiction upon the district forum, madurai. based upon the supreme court ruling, as well as the circular of this commission, when there was no cause of action, against the branch office, the district forum has no jurisdiction, and in this view, in the cmp filed by the opposite party, a finding was recorded, as if district forum, madurai has no jurisdiction. 2. pursuant to the order passed in the cmp, the original complaint was returned, to the appellant/ petitioner, for representing before the proper court, having jurisdiction. it is also conceded by the party in person, that he had represented the case, before the court having jurisdiction, and thereby the matter came to an end, and there is no question of jurisdiction, warranting our interference, either to set aside the order in cmp, or to set aside the order or transfer the case, and in this view the appeal is not admissible, and the same is rejected. 3. in the result, this f.a.sr. is rejected.

Full Judgment

The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction to the opposite parties. On which a petition has been filed by the opposite party, questioning jurisdiction of the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the said petition. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.12.2010 in CC. No.07/2010.

This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the petitioner, perusing the documents, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court)

1. Heard. The petitioner, as complainant, has filed a case before the District Forum, Madurai, against two opposite parties, against whom cause of action had arisen, who are admittedly residing at Chennai, impleading a formal party 3rd opposite party, a branch office, at Madurai, with whom no connection. The District Forum, as per the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, reported in 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP), which was communicated by this commission, to all the District Forum, as well considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has come to the conclusion, even as per the averment in the, complaint no part of cause of action had arisen at Madurai, where the complainant sought to file the case, impleading the branch office, vesting jurisdiction upon the District Forum, Madurai. Based upon the Supreme Court ruling, as well as the circular of this commission, when there was no cause of action, against the branch office, the District Forum has no jurisdiction, and in this view, in the CMP filed by the opposite party, a finding was recorded, as if District Forum, Madurai has no jurisdiction.

2. Pursuant to the order passed in the CMP, the original complaint was returned, to the appellant/ petitioner, for representing before the proper court, having jurisdiction. It is also conceded by the party in person, that he had represented the case, before the Court having jurisdiction, and thereby the matter came to an end, and there is no question of jurisdiction, warranting our interference, either to set aside the order in CMP, or to set aside the order or transfer the case, and in this view the appeal is not admissible, and the same is rejected.

3. In the result, this F.A.Sr. is rejected.

Same Court & Year Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC... Same Parties Pratap Ramanathan and Another vs The Manager Indian Bank Asia... Same Subject MRTP Same Judge Honourable Thiru Justice M. Thanikachalam President &Amp; Thi...