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

DINESH SINGH, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
Bathinda Development Authority Bathinda – Appellant
Versus
Shivani Gupta – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Anavntia Shanker, Proxy Advocate for Ms. Zehra Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Dushyant Tiwari, Advocate

ORDER

This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 25.09.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 313 of 2018.

2. Ms. Anavntia Shanker, learned proxy counsel appears for the appellant (the ‘development authority.’).

Mr. Dushyant Tiwari, learned counsel appears for the respondent (the ‘complainant’).

Heard. Perused the record.

3. Learned proxy counsel for the development authority requests for an adjournment.

Learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposes. He submits that on 09.03.2022 the application seeking condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal was allowed by a co-ordinate bench as it was not opposed by the complainant (“This application seeking condonation of delay is allowed as not opposed by the Respondent”.). The complainant is craving for an early decision on merits. However the development authority is unduly delaying the case. Earlier, on 08.08.2022, 14.09.2022, 09.11.2022, 23.01.2023, 13.03.2023 and 10.04.2023 adjournment was granted at the behest of the development authority. The

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