company-name-logo

Development Authority

Latest Judgments

Total 3630 Consumer Court Cases Against Development Authority.

NCDRC

ESTATE OFFICE,HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S SURESH KATARIA

Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate MR. ANIL MITTAL

Respondant Advocate

Date of Filing: 09 Apr 2010 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1378/2010(Against the Order dated 19/01/2010 in Appeal No. 1927/2004 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. SURESH KATARIAR/o. House No. 333, Sector 16, Nai BastiGurgaonH...

Case Number: 1378

|

Date of Filing: 09-04-2010

|

Date of Upload: 13-05-2010

NCDRC

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S HINDUSTAN FERTILISERS CORPN. LTD.

Development Authority   Ghaziabad Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate G. JOSHI

Respondant Advocate R. UPADHYAY

Date of Filing: 01 Oct 1997 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHICONSUMER CASE NO. No. OP/224/1997 1. HINDUSTAN FERTILISERS CORPN. LTD.REG OFF AT -MADHUBAN 55, NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI ...........Appellant(s)Vs.1. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYVIKAS BHAWAN , VIKA...

Case Number: 224

|

Date of Filing: 01-10-1997

|

Date of Upload: 05-05-2010

NCDRC

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S SHASHI BHUSHAN SINHA

Development Authority   Lucknow Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate MR. SANJEEV BAHADUR SRIVASTAVA

Respondant Advocate

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1488 OF 2009(Against the Order dated 03/12/2008 in Appeal No. 959/1999 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. SHASHI BHUSHAN SINHAS/o. Late Raja Ram Sinha R/o. 44, Rajendra Nagar Lucknow U.P ..........

Case Number: 1488

|

Date of Filing: 23-04-2009

|

Date of Upload: 03-06-2010

NCDRC

INDU SHARMA V/S HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR

Development Authority   Haryana Urban Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate MS. PRAGATI NEEKHRA

Respondant Advocate

Date of Filing: 23 Mar 2010 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1182/2010(Against the Order dated 18/12/2009 in Appeal No. 2365/2006 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANRThrough its Chief Adm...

Case Number: 1182

|

Date of Filing: 23-03-2010

|

Date of Upload: 28-04-2010

NCDRC

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S SHASHI SEHGAL

Development Authority   Ghaziabad Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate MS. TANIA SINGH & GAURI GUPTA

Respondant Advocate

Date of Filing: 29 Mar 2010 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1223/2010(Against the Order dated 22/01/2009 in Appeal No. 3267/2002 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. SHASHI SEHGALR/o. House No. B-19, F1, Ram PuriGhaziabad ...

Case Number: 1223

|

Date of Filing: 29-03-2010

|

Date of Upload: 27-04-2010

NCDRC

ANITA MITTAL V/S MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Development Authority   Meerut Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate MR. GAURAV DHAMA

Respondant Advocate MR. ARVIND KUMAR SHUKLA

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 789 OF 2010(Against the Order dated 25/08/2009 in Appeal No. 1714/2007 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough its SecretaryMeerutUttar Pradesh ...........Petitione...

Case Number: 789

|

Date of Filing: 18-02-2010

|

Date of Upload: 26-04-2010

NCDRC

GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER V/S M. I. BUILDERS (PVT.) LTD.

Development Authority   Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate MR. K. C. GUPTA

Respondant Advocate

Date of Filing: 20 Oct 2008 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHICONSUMER CASE NO. No. CC/137/2008 1. M. I. BUILDERS (PVT.) LTD.New Janpath Complex 28/14 9-A Ashok Marg Hazratganj LucknowUttar Pradesh ...........Appellant(s)Vs.1. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELO...

Case Number: 137

|

Date of Filing: 20-10-2008

|

Date of Upload: 21-04-2010

NCDRC

SMT. SHARMILA DEVI V/S HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Development Authority   Haryana Urban Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate MR. PRASHANT KR. SHARMA & J.N. MAHATO

Respondant Advocate -

Date of Filing: 16 Nov 2006 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3486/2006(Against the Order dated 05/04/2006 in Appeal No. 1759/2000 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYESRATE PFFOCE . SORSA HA...

Case Number: 3486

|

Date of Filing: 16-11-2006

|

Date of Upload: 21-04-2010

NCDRC

LAXMAN KHETANI V/S JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Development Authority   Jodhpur Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate MR. ARUNESHWAR GUPTA

Respondant Advocate

Date of Filing: 16 Nov 2009 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4161/2009(Against the Order dated 05/03/2008 in Appeal No. 415/2007 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough Its Secretary Improvemen...

Case Number: 4161

|

Date of Filing: 16-11-2009

|

Date of Upload: 16-04-2010

NCDRC

HARYANA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S S.K. KANSAL

Development Authority  

Court Name: NCDRC

Appelant Advocate MR. H.S. BHATI

Respondant Advocate

Date of Filing: 25 Feb 2010 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/923/2010(Against the Order dated 20/11/2009 in Appeal No. 1032/2006 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. S.K. KANSALResident of 2682, Sector - 3, FaridabadFaridabadHary...

Case Number: 923

|

Date of Filing: 25-02-2010

|

Date of Upload: 13-04-2010

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Common FAQ

Question : Am I eligible to file case against Development Authority in Consumer Forum?

Answer : If you have purchased a product or avails any service, either for your personal use or to earn your livelihood by means of self-employment.

Question : When I can fill a complaint against Development Authority ?

Answer : A complaint may be made against Development Authority under the following circumstances:
1 : Loss or damage is caused to the consumer due to unfair or restrictive trade practice.
2 : the article purchased by you is defective.
3 : the services availed of by you suffer from any deficiency.
4 : charged more then MRP
5 : Goods or services, which will be hazardous to life and safety, when used, are being offered for sale to the public.

Question : Is there any exemption from payment of Court Fee?

Answer : The complainants who are Below the Poverty Line shall be entitled for the exemption of payment of fee for complaints upto rupees one lakh on production of an attested copy of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana card.

Question : What are the Reliefs available to Consumers?

Answer : The reliefs available are :
1 : Removal of defects from the goods
2 : Replacement of the goods
3 : Refund of the price paid.
4 : Removal of defects or deficiencies in the services
5 : Award of compensation for the loss or injury suffered;
6 : Discontinue and not to repeat unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice;
7 : To withdraw hazardous goods from being offered for sale;
8 : To cease manufacture of hazardous goods and desist from offering services which are hazardous in nature;
9 : If the loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently, to pay such sum (not less than 5% of the value of such defective goods or services provided) which shall be determined by the forum;
10 : To issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement;
11 : To provide adequate costs to parties.