Severity: Warning
Message: fopen(/var/www/html/lawsisto/application/writable/pcfx_session_m1q7o446pdn75jnpdv6uhn98bgct21ru): failed to open stream: No space left on device
Filename: drivers/Session_files_driver.php
Line Number: 172
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/third_party/MX/Loader.php
Line: 173
Function: _ci_load_library
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/third_party/MX/Loader.php
Line: 192
Function: library
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/third_party/MX/Loader.php
Line: 153
Function: libraries
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/third_party/MX/Loader.php
Line: 65
Function: initialize
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/modules/welcome/controllers/Legal_news.php
Line: 6
Function: __construct
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once
A revision petition would not be maintainable under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order which was passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission when the order is in execution proceedings, said the Supreme Court.
In this case, the NCDRC dismissed a revision petition filed against an order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission which was in appeal against the District Forum order in an Execution Petition. The Commission had said that the Revision Petition is only applicable when the order of the State Commission in any consumer dispute is not in execution petition.
When the SLP filed against the NCDRC order was dismissed, the three- judge’s bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee observed:
“ We may refer to the decision of this Court in Karnataka Housing Board v K A Nagmani, in which the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rightly concluded that a revision could not be considered as valid under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 when it is filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and execution is in proceeding.”
In KA Nagmani Case, the Supreme Court had observed: “proceedings for execution are entirely separate and independent in the case of execution of a decree. Whether there are merits of the claim or dispute, they cannot be mentioned when the execution is in process. They are independent proceedings which are initiated by decree holder in order to enforce the decree passed for the substantive dispute. Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not have any remedy of filing a revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in execution proceedings. Also Section 21 (b) of the same act doesn’t talks about filing of a Revision Petition in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission against the order passed by the State Commission when its execution is in process.”
Therefore the Supreme Court rejected the Revision Petition.
86540
103860
630
114
59824
Severity: Warning
Message: session_write_close(): Failed to write session data (user). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct (/var/www/html/lawsisto/application/writable)
Filename: Unknown
Line Number: 0
Backtrace:
