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

R. K. AGRAWAL
Chief Administrator, HSVP – Appellant
Versus
Darshana Sethi – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Noopur Singhal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate (On Caveat)

ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the Chief Administrator, Haryana Sahari Vikas Pradhikaran/Opposite Party in the Complaint before the District Forum (for short “the HSVP”) question the correctness and legality of the Order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 373 of 2021. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the HSVP against the Order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 322 of 2021. The District Forum while allowing the Complaint filed by the Complainant has directed the HSVP to allot and give the physical possession of the Plot No. 316 of Sector 21 or Plot Nos. 277 or 278 of Sector 31 to the Complainant in lieu of the originally allotted Plot No. 87 of Sector 21 C III, Faridabad if lying vacant without litigation. The HSVP was also directed not to create a third party interest on the aforesaid plots and to further pay

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