R.MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. MANAGER CANARA BANK CHENNAI
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
N.KANNADASAN, J. -
(1.) The above Revision Petition is filed as against the order dt.4.2.2008
of the District Forum in rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner herein to expunge certain portion and to reject the written
version as inadmissible evidence.
(2.) As regards the 1st prayer is concerned viz. expunge paragraph 9 of the
written version of the opposite party, the main objection raised by the
petitioner herein is that a conclusion is arrived at by the opposite
party as if a fraud is made upon by the complainant viz. evasion of tax
as against the sovereign Government. The relevant portion is extracted
The Opposite party submits that they did not accede to the request of
the complainant in not deducting tax at source as the same amounts to
participation in the crime of evasion of tax played by the complainant
against the Sovereign Government.
Aggrieved as against the above remarks, the petitioner has filed an
application to expunge the remarks. Eventhough the District Forum has
dismissed the said application on the ground that Consumer Forum cannot
be equated on par with regular civil court and the petition filed under
Rule 14 Order 6 of the CPC is not maintainable, without rendering any
finding on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CPC, we
are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the opposite
party by expunging the averment as made in paragraph 9 of the Written
Version. Hence as far as the first relief is claimed by the petitioner
herein viz. to expunge paragraph 9 of the written version is concerned,
we are inclined to grant the said relief.
Accordingly, paragraph 9 of the written version is expunged.
(3.) The 2nd relief claimed by the petitioner is to the effect that written
version filed by the opposite party should be rejected as inadmissible
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.