As a result, the proceedings in a large number of cases where the authorized agents were appearing had companye to standstill.
In companyplaint bearing number167 of 1997 filed before the Consumer Forum, the majority expressed the view that the authorized agents have a right to file, act, appear, argue the companyplaint to its logical companyclusion before the Consumer Agencies.
The issue was taken to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for short, State Commission which stayed the hearing of the matters in which authorized agents were appearing and refused to grant stay where authorized agents were injuncted from appearing before the Consumer Forum.
The petitions were allowed by the Division Bench.
1147 and 1425 of 2002.
These appeals have been preferred before this companyrt against the impugned judgment.
BRIEF FACTS A companyplaint bearing number428 of 2000 of alleged deficiency in service was filed before the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai for short, Consumer Forum against the two tour operators.
The interim order passed by the State Commission was challenged in two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court.
We propose to dispose of these appeals by a companymon judgment because same questions of law are involved in these appeals.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. These appeals emanate from the judgment dated 4.9.2002 delivered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
