order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission 1 (hereafter
“NCDRC”). The respondent (hereafter “the purchaser”) had sought, through his
complaint a direction against ... amounts paid. It is in these circumstances, that the
appellant approached the NCDRC, for direction to the builder to refund the entire
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1 ("hereafter the
NCDRC"). In the impugned order, the NCDRC dismissed the appellant’s revision
petition, that ... temporary
registration had expired and relying upon two previous orders of the NCDRC had
concluded that if at the time of theft, the vehicle
passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (hereafter ‘NCDRC’, for short). By
the impugned order, the NCDRC has dismissed the consumer
complaint ... nature delineated therein. Based on the complaint
that was lodged before the NCDRC, the appellants sought direction
3
to the respondents to provide the completion
questions an order of the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission,1 (hereinafter, “NCDRC”) which allowed the insurance
claim of Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter ... therefore regret our inability entertain the claim.”
The Complaint and Proceedings before NCDRC
5. Levi approached NCDRC with its complaint under Sections
directed against orders 1 of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter “NCDRC”).
The NCDRC allowed a revision petition filed by the respondent corporation ... dismissed the appeal3, upon which HSIDC filed a revision petition
before the NCDRC, which was dismissed on the ground of delay 4. The
HSIDC
Reason:
1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the NCDRC’.
2 hereinafter referred to as ‘the MCI’.
Page 1 of 21
we have directed payment of compensation ... part of Respondent
3.
18. The complainants filed an appeal before the NCDRC. Simultaneously
Respondents 1 and 2 also filed an appeal for dismissal
appellants challenge the order of the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (“the NCDRC”)1 which upheld the concurrent rejection
of their application seeking relief ... were bound by it. In these
circumstances, the appellants approached the NCDRC with a revision petition.
The NCDRC upheld the insurer’s contention that
aggrieved by an order1 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereinafter, “NCDRC”) dismissing its complaint. The issue urged by
the appellant is whether ... NCDRC was correct in placing reliance on guidelines
issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter, “DGFT
Guidelines”)2 to interpret the date
impugned order, the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (for short ‘ the NCDRC’) has allowed the
appeal filed by the respondent – AIIMS and rejected the complaint ... appellant while he was abroad.
The reasons which have commended to the NCDRC do not appear to us
to be flawed. The finding is that
been moved by the appellant before the NCDRC for
orders to facilitate the process of handing over the owners’ share to the
respondents ... with the home buyers.
4 Since the proceedings are pending before the NCDRC, we are not expressing
any opinion on the merits of the submissions
