Proloy Mitra vs M/S. Fairland Development India Pvt. Ltd. previously knows as M/S. Faitland Development Pvt. Ltd.
Party Details
- Proloy Mitra
- Sanjukta Mitra
- M/S. Fairland Development India Pvt. Ltd. previously knows as M/S. Faitland Development Pvt. Ltd.
- M/S. Soumita Construction Pvt. Ltd.
- Amitabh Roy
- Sanchita Roy Chowdhury
Case Summary
Proloy Mitra and Sanjukta Mitra filed Case No. CC/402/2021 in the Consumer Court on 18 Nov 2021 against M/S. Fairland Development India Pvt. Ltd. previously knows as M/S. Faitland Development Pvt. Ltd. and M/S. Soumita Construction Pvt. Ltd.. The case has had one hearing so far. The case is currently pending. 1 order has been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (1)
- 10DEC 2021Hearing
Judge: N/A
Stage: DISPOSED OFF
Orders (1)
- 10DEC 2021judgement
Order No: N/A
Judgement Details
Daily Order DIST.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KOLKATA UNIT-II (CENTRAL) 8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700087.
Complaint Case No.
CC/402/2021 Proloy Mitra Sanjukta Mitra Vs.
M/S.
Fairland Development India Pvt.
Ltd. previously knows as M/S.
Faitland Development Pvt.
Ltd. and Others BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.
Swapan Kumar Mahanty PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS.
Sahana Ahmed Basu MEMBER HON'BLE MR.
Ashoke Kumar Ganguly MEMBER PRESENT: Urmi Sengupta, Advocate for the Complainant 1 Dated : 10 Dec 2021 Order Order-1.
Date-18/11/2021.
Received the complaint under section 35 of the CP Act ‘2019 along with D.D bearing No.
39H707008,39H707009 dt.10/11/2021 drawn on Post Office, amounting Rs.200/- (Rupees Two hundred) only.
Register the case, fixing 10/12/2021 for admission hearing.
Order No.
02 Dated- 10.12.2021 Today is fixed for admission hearing.
Heard the Ld.
Advocate for the complainants.
Perused the complaint petition coupled with documents annexed thereto.
On bare perusal of the cause title of the consumer complaint, it appears to us that OP-1 is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Commission but remaining OPs are carrying on business and/or residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
Section 34 (2) of CP Act, 2019 reads as follows:- (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within a local limits whose jurisdiction,- (a) the OP or each of the OPs, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the OPs, where there are more than one at the time fo the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such cases the permission of the District Commission is give; or (C) the cause of action, holding or in part arises; or (d) the complainant resides or personally ersonally works for gain.
Complainants are permanent inhabitants of Bidhanagar PS and OPs 2 to 4 are also carrying on business and/or residing under Airport PS and Bidhanagar PS respectively.
Complainants fail to file any application U/s 34 (2) (b) of CP Act, 2019 for grant of permission to sue the instant case against the OPs 2 to 4.
In the above premises, we are not inclined to admit the complaint and the complaint is rejected. [HON'BLE MR.
Swapan Kumar Mahanty] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS.
Sahana Ahmed Basu] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR.
Ashoke Kumar Ganguly] MEMBER