NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2329/2009

M/S. GOLDEN HORSE BOX MAKERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SAMEER SINGH & DEEPAK BHANWALA

17 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 02 Jul 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2329/2009
(Against the Order dated 04/03/2009 in Appeal No. 1432/2002 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. M/S. GOLDEN HORSE BOX MAKERSThrough Its Prop. Harmohinder Singh R/o. A-88 Lajpat Nagar New Delhi Through Its Constituted Attorney Narinder Singh S/o. Sh. balbir Singh R/o. Village. Nangal Dewat. New Delhi ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. HUDA & ORS.Sector. -6 Panchkula Through Its. Chief Administrator 2. HUDA Through its Estate Officer . Bahadurgarh Jhajjar ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr. Sameer Singh, adv for MR. SAMEER SINGH & DEEPAK BHANWALA, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 17 Jul 2009
ORDER

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.

Complainant is in revision petition before us.

          The State Commission in its order has recorded that the complainant had been issued a notice for resumption of the plot.  Petitioner had appeared before the State Authorities on 14.2.1995 and requested for extension of one month time to deposit the fee which was not done.  He was issued another Memo no. 2768 dated 17.6.1998 for hearing on 17.7.1998.  Complainant had appeared on

-2-

the said date and was heard at length.  The plot in question was resumed thereafter.  The complaint was filed in the year 2001. 

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not come to know about the notice.   This plea cannot be accepted in view of the finding recorded by the State Commission that the petitioner had appeared before the authorities, firstly on 14.2.1998 and later on, on 17.7.1998.  The finding recorded is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Revision petition is dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER