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

2003(3) CPR 150
DELHI STATE REDRESSAL CONSUMER DISPUTES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Lokeshwar Prasad, President and Ms. Rumnita Mittal. Member
Ms. Manorama Vij -Appellant
Versus
Swatantra Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd. -Respondent
Appeal No. A-151 of 2003
Decided on 4-3-2003

Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where cause of action arose much before filing of complaint beyond limitation, serving legal notice in between would not extend limitation.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24-A - Limitation Appellant booked a plot which was allotted in 1963 & its cost was paid - Additional demands towards installment of electric poles & external sewerage charges raised in 1971 & 1982 - Demands challenged in complainant filed in 2002 - Complaint was barred by limitation Visits of complainant office of opp. party & thereafter sending legal notice in 2002 would not extend limitation - Order dismissing complaint suffered no illegality. (Paras 5 & 6)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

Manorama Vij VS Swatantra Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd
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 Back to top