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

SUBHASH CHANDRA, AVM J. RAJENDRA
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Prem Jindal – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Zehra Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Naem Ilyas, Advocate (VC)

ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 08.06.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 498 of 2016, wherein the appeal filed by the Appellant / Petitioner was dismissed and the Order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa (the “District Commission”) in CC No.202 of 2015 was partly allowed.

2. As per report of the registry there is a delay of 30 days in filing this Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA/17403/2017, the delay is condoned.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Mr. Prem Jindal is referred as the Complainant (Respondent herein) and Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA, is referred to as the Opposite Party / OP (Petitioner herein).

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he initiated proceedings against the Opposite Party (OP), alleging that the OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 o

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