Himachal Pradesh Court November 2011 Judgments

M/S. Surya Filling Station Vs. Drastic Reliable Works (Regd.) Chintpur ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla

Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Shimla in Consumer Complaint No. 105/2008, decided on 26.6.2009, whereby the complaint was dismissed solely on the ground that this complaint involves complicated question of facts and law, the same cannot be decided in the summary manner and the dispute between the same parties is pending in the Civil Court (Junior Division) at Amb. The parties hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint. 2. The facts of the case as they emerge from the record are that the complainant kumari Gunjan, being proprietor of firm M/s Surya Filling Station, had purchased 15000 inter locking pavers, (hereinafter referred to as pavers) vide bill No. 65 dated 7.6.2006 and vide bill No. 68 dated 12.6.2006 for a sum of Rs, 45,000/- each from the opposite party. The complainant had made advance payment of Rs. 10000/- on 12.2.2006 to the opposite party. The complainant had issued two cheque of ...

Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Another

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2330

Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing order dated 20.4.2010 summoning the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘Act’), order dated 11.5.2011 putting notice of accusation under Section 16(1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (i) of the Act and complaint No. 46/3 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Theog. 2. The facts, in brief, as stated in the petition are that on 8.10.2009 respondent No.2 Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and expressed her intention to take sample of “Atta” which was kept for sale in sealed packs of different quantities viz. 5 Kg./10 Kg. The respondent No. 2 instead of collecting the sample in the same form i.e. in the packed and sealed form in which it was kept for sale, opened the packet and purchased 900 grams of wheat flour out of 5 Kg. sealed pack by cutting it open. 3. The respondent No.2 sent one part of the sample t...