Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Basawaraj By Lrs Ors vs Spl.Land Acquisition Officer on 11 April, 2011
8. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this
Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the
appeal after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has
been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The
relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as
under:-
Anil Kumar Sharma vs Chairman & Managing Director, United ... on 2 July, 2015
9. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs.
United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in
IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as
under:-
Mmtc Ltd. vs Shri. S.B Mittal & Ors. on 13 April, 2023
14. As per the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition
No. 1246 of 2023 titled as Shashank Anil Singh vs. Star
ALLOWED Page 5 of 8
A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023
KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK
Health & Allied Insurance Company (Against the Order dated
20/04/2023 in Appeal No. 104/2023 of the State Commission
Delhi), in Revision Petition No. 1360 of 2023 titled as Sudha
Kapil & Anr. vs. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt.
Ltd. (Against the Order dated 07/03/2023 in Appeal No. 9/2023
of the State Commission Delhi), in Revision Petition No. 1673
of 2023 titled as SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. vs.
Anuj Kumar (Against the Order dated 13/02/2023 in Appeal No.
A/1772/2016 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh), in
Revision Petition No. 1705 of 2023 titled as M/s SMV
Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs. Harpreet Kaur(Against the Order
dated 10/07/2023 in Appeal No. A/249/2023 of the State
Commission Delhi),in Revision Petition No. 1711 of 2023
titled as MMTC Ltd. vs. S.B. Mittal &Ors. (Against the Order
dated 13/04/2023 in Appeal No. FA/72/2022 of the State
Commission Delhi), it is mandatory to supply copy of the
impugned order to the parties and the period taken in issuing
certified copy of the order has to be excluded while computing
limitation.
Rajni Bareja & Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors on 2 November, 2023
"3. That the District Forum did not send the copy of dismissal
order to complainant and when on 22.11.2018 the appellant
argued the matter in case titled "Sandeep Bareja vs. NDMC"
Sudha Kapil & Anr. vs Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. ... on 3 May, 2023
14. As per the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition
No. 1246 of 2023 titled as Shashank Anil Singh vs. Star
ALLOWED Page 5 of 8
A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023
KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK
Health & Allied Insurance Company (Against the Order dated
20/04/2023 in Appeal No. 104/2023 of the State Commission
Delhi), in Revision Petition No. 1360 of 2023 titled as Sudha
Kapil & Anr. vs. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt.
Ltd. (Against the Order dated 07/03/2023 in Appeal No. 9/2023
of the State Commission Delhi), in Revision Petition No. 1673
of 2023 titled as SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. vs.
Anuj Kumar (Against the Order dated 13/02/2023 in Appeal No.
A/1772/2016 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh), in
Revision Petition No. 1705 of 2023 titled as M/s SMV
Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs. Harpreet Kaur(Against the Order
dated 10/07/2023 in Appeal No. A/249/2023 of the State
Commission Delhi),in Revision Petition No. 1711 of 2023
titled as MMTC Ltd. vs. S.B. Mittal &Ors. (Against the Order
dated 13/04/2023 in Appeal No. FA/72/2022 of the State
Commission Delhi), it is mandatory to supply copy of the
impugned order to the parties and the period taken in issuing
certified copy of the order has to be excluded while computing
limitation.
1