Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT, DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
M/S. HUBTOWN LTD. & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
VIMAL BHANNUDAS VARAK – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of parties involved in the case. (Para 1) |
| 2. court reasoning on jurisdiction and definition of 'consumer'. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. application of consumer protection law and its relationship with slum rehabilitation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. summary of related case law and principles established. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. conclusions regarding the status of complainants and the outcome of the case. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. final decision of revision petitions. (Para 25) |
ORDER
1. The present batch of the Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties in the Complaint before the District Forum, assailing the Common Order dated 12.10.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal Nos. A/15/1001 to A/15/1031. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed all the First Appeals preferred by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against the Common Order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Mumbai Sub-Urban District (for short,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
