AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 284 wordsChallenge in this Revision Petition by a Real Estate Developer, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint, is to the interim order dated 03.10.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.498 of 2016. By the said order, the State Commission has directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of 10,00,000/- as a pre-condition for stay of the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Aurangabad (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 554 of 2014.
The short grievance of the Petitioner is that since the total relief claimed by Respondent No.1/Complainant is in the vicinity of 10,00,000/-, the State Commission was not justified in directing the Petitioner to make deposit of the afore-stated amount.
Although the Revision Petition is listed for admission hearing but having regard to the limited grievance of the Petitioner, we feel that issue of notice in this Revision Petition to all the Respondents would not only cause delay in the disposal of the Appeal, it would cause unnecessary harassment to the parties.
Having heard learned Counsel and perused the Complaint as well as the order passed by the District Forum, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served by directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of 6,00,000/- in the State Commission, as a condition precedent for stay of the operation of the order passed by the District Forum. Ordered accordingly. The said amount shall be deposited within four weeks from today. The impugned order shall stand modified to that extent.
The Revision Petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.