Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Pol Securities Limited and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others.

Pol Securities Limited and Others vs Ashok Kumar and Others.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi Decided Jan 16, 2008
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1112021

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Appeal No. 07 of 914
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Comparative Citation: 2009 (1) CPJ 91

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pol Securities Limited and Others

Respondent

Ashok Kumar and Others.

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - comparative citation: 2009 (1) cpj 91.....to each complainant. (5) to pay a sum of rs. 5,000 consolidated as cost of litigation. 2. it is pertinent to mention at this stage that the appellant had suffered similar order earlier which is dated 23.8.2006 and filed an appeal against the said order. vide order dated 10.4.2007, this commission allowed the appeal and sent back the matter to the district forum for deciding it afresh after affording opportunity to the appellant for producing hand writing expert and to decide the matter in just and fair manner. 3. unfortunately the appellant could not produce the share transfer deed during the proceedings and with great effort succeeded in locating share transfer deed and made application to the district forum by placing this on record and for getting opinion of the hand writing expert. the district forum had reserved the order and pronounced the same without getting opinion of the hand writing expert. 4. once the appellant had made an application for getting signatures examined from the hand writing expert, it was incumbent upon the district forum to allow the said application in spite of its having been made at belated stage but before pronouncement of the order. 5. the district forum should have at least kept our observations in mind while deciding the matter finally that we had sent back the matter for affording opportunity to the appellant for getting opinion of the hand writing expert and decide the matter afresh in just and fair manner. fair and just decision is of more significance than the stage of the case at which the party seeks remedy for such decision. 6. foregoing reasons persuade us to allow the appeal at the outset, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the district forum for deciding it on merit after obtaining opinion of the hand writing expert either through the appellant or on its own. 7. we may observe that it is not necessary that party should always apply for examination of document by hand writing expert. it is also the.....

Full Judgment

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral):

1. There is serious dispute as to the genuineness of the signatures of the appellant on the share transfer deed submitted with the appellant resulting in the impugned order dated 5.11.2007, giving following direction to the appellant:

(1) To refund a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at the rate of 9% from 18.7.1996 till realisation to the complainant. No. 1.

(2) To refund a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest @ 9% from 18.7.1996 till realisation to complainant No. 2.

(3) To refund a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest @ 9% from 18.7.1996 till realisation to complainant No. 3.

(4) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to each complainant.

(5) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 consolidated as cost of litigation.

2. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the appellant had suffered similar order earlier which is dated 23.8.2006 and filed an appeal against the said order. Vide order dated 10.4.2007, this Commission allowed the appeal and sent back the matter to the District Forum for deciding it afresh after affording opportunity to the appellant for producing Hand Writing Expert and to decide the matter in just and fair manner.

3. Unfortunately the appellant could not produce the share transfer deed during the proceedings and with great effort succeeded in locating share transfer deed and made application to the District Forum by placing this on record and for getting opinion of the Hand Writing Expert. The District Forum had reserved the order and pronounced the same without getting opinion of the Hand Writing Expert.

4. Once the appellant had made an application for getting signatures examined from the Hand Writing Expert, it was incumbent upon the District Forum to allow the said application in spite of its having been made at belated stage but before pronouncement of the order.

5. The District Forum should have at least kept our observations in mind while deciding the matter finally that we had sent back the matter for affording opportunity to the appellant for getting opinion of the Hand Writing Expert and decide the matter afresh in just and fair manner. Fair and just decision is of more significance than the stage of the case at which the party seeks remedy for such decision.

6. Foregoing reasons persuade us to allow the appeal at the outset, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the District Forum for deciding it on merit after obtaining opinion of the Hand Writing Expert either through the appellant or on its own.

7. We may observe that it is not necessary that party should always apply for examination of document by Hand Writing Expert. It is also the duty of the District Forum to get such an opinion if there are allegations made by the party as to the genuineness of the signatures for just and material adjudication of the dispute. District Forum shall decide the matter preferably within three months.

8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.

9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Appeal allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial