Tribunals and Commissions(2003) 08 NCDRC CK 0040

AVER POTOPRINT SYSTEM vs RAMAKRISHNA AUTO COLOUR LAB

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 20 August 2003 · Citation: 2003 4 CPJ 400 : 2004 2 CPR 349

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.Ramakrishnam Raju , C.P.Suresh J.
RESULT
Review Petition dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 185 words
1.

THIS review petition is filed by the opposite party stating that the second complainant has written a letter to the opposite party that he is not entitled to claim any relief in the complaint, but the complaint was filed only to save himself from the State Financial Corporation. But this letter was not filed when the C.D. was taken up by this Commission. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the complainants played fraud and obtained order dated 3.7.2002 and as such this Commission has power to review its order, as orders obtained by playing fraud cannot be sustained. Orders obtained by playing fraud on the Court cannot be sustained as fraud and justice cannot go together. But if fraud is played against one party or the other, he has to safe-guard himself by bringing it to the notice of the Court. As it is not done at the appropriate time, we do not think that we have power to review our order even if the allegation is true. Hence, this application is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. Review Petition dismissed.