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

R.K.AGRAWAL, S.M.KANTIKAR
Manish Vashishth – Appellant
Versus
HUDA – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Advocate

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President—The Revision Petition No. 2046 of 2011, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), was preferred by the Petitioners/Complainants, against the Order dated 17.01.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1418/2005 whereby the State Commission had allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondents, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, the HUDA) and set aside the order dated 06.06.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short “the District Forum”).

2. Succinctly put, the material facts relevant for disposal of the Miscellaneous Application No. 239 of 2020 and I. A. No. 58 of 2021 are that on 08.03.1973, the HUDA had allotted a residential unit being Plot No. 619 admeasuring 500 sq. yards in Sector 21-B, Faridabad to one, Mrs. Parkash Kumar for a tentative price of ¹ 22,000/-. On death of the original allottee, the Plot was transferred in the name of her husband, Raj Kumar on 21.12.2003. Subsequently, the Plot was transferred by the HUDA in the name of the Complainants on 19.04.2005

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