Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Section 24 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar Sainia vs Delhi Development Authority on 21 March, 2013
In appeal no. 183/07 titled as Ashok Kumar Saini Vs. DDA decided on 21.03.2013 it was held that limitation is from draw of lots and not from correspondence.
Dda vs Sunil Bharti on 13 August, 2009
8. Moreover, in view of decision of National Commission in DDA Vs. Sunil Bharti IV (2009) CPJ 88, decision cited by counsel for the respondent cannot be followed. The reason being that decision cited by counsel for the respondent is that of State Commission only.
P. Subbian vs The Branch Manager, Canara Bank on 24 January, 2001
In P. Subbian Vs. Branch Manager, Canara Bank II (2001) CPJ 43 National Commission held that service by publication in a newspaper is valid.
D.D.A vs Jagdish Lal Arora on 1 July, 2014
7. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The counsel for the respondent relied upon decision of State Commission in first appeal No. 763/07 titled as DDA Vs. Jagdish Lal Arora decided on 28.05.2013. In that case the DDA has not sent the allotment letter at the new address and the dispute was regarding intimation of new address of the complainant. The facts are different. Here receipt of new address is admitted. The demand letter purports to have been issued at the new address.
1