SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 54

V. N. KHARE, S. B. SINHA, A. R. LAKSHMANAN
MANORAMA SACHAN – Appellant
Versus
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


ORDER

1, This Court on a number of occasions has held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"), while deciding the original petition, is required to give reasons, howsoever brief they may be. On perusal of the judgment under challenge we find that the Commission has not given any reason while dismissing the original petition. It is on this short ground, the order under challenge deserves to be set aside.

2. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment under challenge and remit the matter to the Commission for deciding the original petition by a speaking order.

3. The appeal is allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top