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

2009 Supreme(Chh) 193

N.K.AGARWAL
HEMANT SAHU – Appellant
Versus
SHAILJA SAMUEL – Respondent


Advocates: AMIYKANT TIWARI, MANINDRA SHRIVASTAV, Uttam Pandey,

JUDGMENT

( 1 ) HEARD on admission and question of maintainability of the petitions. This batch of petitions involve common question of law. Therefore, all the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) W. P. (227) Nos. 1520/09,1532/09,1531/ 09, 1524/09, 1539/09, 1522/09, 1521/09, 1545/09, 1197/09, 2121/09, 2123/09, 1913/ 09, 1916/09, 1917/09, 1930/09, 2122/09, 2239/09, 2094/09, 2096/09, 1202/09, 2116/ 09, 2237/09, 2120/09, 2240/09, 2238/09, 2242/09, 2241/09, 284/09, 247/09, 282/09, 283/09, 248/09, 1193/09, 1921/09, 1928/09, 1919/09, 7051/08, 1203/09, 416/09, 411/09, 246/09,6951/08, 6947/08,6949/08,6950/08, 1198/09 and 281/09 are directed against the order passed by the State Consumer Dispute redressal Commission, Raipur, (for short 'state Commission'), whereby and whereunder the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on account of refusal to comply Second Proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act, 1986') by the petitioner. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioner seeking inter alia following reliefs:

i. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from distt. Forum Durg and State C


































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