1996 (1) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed the main order in Rajaram Corn Products Punjab Ltd. v. Nitin Kumar Gupta [Revision Petition No. 11 of 1994] against which order in Revision Petition No. 89 of 1995 has been filed before this Commission. The other revision petitions were disposed of by the State Commission for the reasons stated in the order passed in Revision Petition No. 11 of 1994. Feeling aggrieved against those orders the opposite parties have filed these revision petitions. 2. The facts as gathered from the record are that the respondents in these revision petitions had filed complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raj an and Gaon, Madhya Pradesh alleging that the share certificates for which they had applied to the present petitioner - company....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... complainants had alleged that they were entitled to receive the share certificates at Rajanand Gaon, therefore, part of cause of action arose to the various complainants at Rajanand Gaon on account of non-receipt of the share certificates and thus the District Forum at Rajanand Gaon has jurisdiction. The revision petitions filed by the oppo- site party were accordingly dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against those orders these revision petitions have been filed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the State Commission was in error while holding that part of cause of action had arisen at Rajanand Gaon and therefore the District Forum of that place had jurisdiction. Section 11 of the Consumer Protec....