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

2004 Supreme(AP) 1176

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, K.C.BHANU
Eureka EStates Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad – Respondent


B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ and quash the order of the 1st respondent in C. D. I. A. No. 1392 of 2003 (wrongly described as C. D. I. A. No. 1939 of 2001) in C. D. No. 74 of 1999, dated 07-11-2003.

( 2 ) IN order to consider as to whether the impugned order passed by the A. P. State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the Commission") suffers from any errors apparent on the face of the record requiring our interference in exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction, few relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition may have to be noticed.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 herein have filed a complaint in C. D. No. 74 of 1999 before the 1st respondent-Commission under Section 17 (1) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ) against the petitioner with a prayer to direct the petitioner to complete the construction of flat Nos. C-9, C-10, C-11 and C-12 respectively in the fourth floor of eureka court Apartments in Survey No. 14, yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, as per th









































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