N. Manohar Reddy Vs. Happy Farm and Resorts and Others

Decided On : Oct-29-2013

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

LAW: Section 14, the Limitation Act, Article 226 and Article 227, Section 14, the Limitation Act, Section 14, the Limitation Act, Section 14 of the Act, Section 14, the Limitation Act, Section 14, the Limitation Act, Madras 216, Compensation Act, the Limitation Act, Section 14, the Limitation Act, Article 226 of the Constitution, Section 19, Article 226 of the Constitution, Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226, Article 226 of the Constitution the, Article 226 ­or, Article 32, Article 226/Article 32, Article 226 of the Constitution, Section 3, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, the Contract Act, Section 9, Section 19, Section 17, Section 19, section 17, Section 17, Section 18, Section 17, the Division Bench, Section 19 of the Act, Article 227 of the Constitution, Section 23 of the Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Protection Act

PERSON: V.B. Gupta, No.1692, Disputes Redressal, No.1692, Bangalore, Chait Ram Saini, K. Rajiv, Nivedita Sharma, certiorari, legislation-­ L. Chandra Kumar v. Union, Willes, Gordon Grant, Jeevan Reddy, J., Shri Vaidyanathan, Chandra Maheshwari, Antarim Zila, N.K. Modi, M.K., Shri Suri, Charan Singh, Nivedita Sharma, Anr, ¦¦, Ram Lal, S.5, Haryana 45, R.B. Bhavaneshwari, Foras, Anshul Aggarwal, Petitioner, Apex Courtin RamrameshwariDevi, Nirmala Devi, Swaran Singh Vs

CARDINAL: 3025-3027, 2, 3., 4., 20.7.2004, 5., 6, 8., 9, 10, 11, 12, 4., 5, 24.07.2006 to, 5., 23.06.2006, 13, 1, 2, 6, 1, four, 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 14, 19, 20, 21, 07.12.2011, 3, 261, one, 964, 2, 6, 336, 141, three, 67, 222, 105, 5, 536, 6, 243, 7, 668, 1, twenty, one, 2, more than one, more than one, thirty-five thousand, 20, 1, 12, 19, 11, 21, 17 and 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 361, 27, one, 28, 2, 29, 30, 1(SC, 1, one, 5, 6., 32, 33, 1,2 and 3, 34, 36, 904, 37, 47, 48, 5, 668, 50, Fifty Thousand, 39, Twenty Five Thousand, 40, 41, 42

DATE: 2011, 23.6.2006, 2006, 2011, 2007, 631 days, 2006, 40 days, 2007, 23.06.2006, 1,817 days, 16.06.2011, 10192/2006, 16.6.2011, 16.6.2011, the delay of days, 1313/2008, 3)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 14, 1998, about 5 years, 1986, 5 years, 11431-11434, 2011, 1997, 1983, 1859, 1919, 1918-19, 61, 1935, 1939-40, 1940, 1997, 1986, 1986, several years, 1996, 1872, 2000, 1986, a period of, thirty days, 14, 17, 1986, 1986, 17068-17069/2010, 9 July 2010),in, a single day, 1986, 93 (2001, 1994, 2009, 1986, 2012, 2011, 1986, 31, 1817 days, 631 days, 631 days, more than 9 years ago, 35, 2011, July 4, 2011, 46, a week, 2000, 49, 38, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, one month, today

ORG: First Appeals, State, Disputes Redressal Commission, State Commission, Revision Petition No.3028, the State Commission, the Housing Scheme, District Forum, District Forum, District Forum, District Forum, the State Commission, the State Commission, State Commission, Karnataka High Court, the High Court, the Writ Petition, No.3025-3027 of, the Honble State Commission, the Honble High Court, the Writ Petition, the Honble High Court, the Writ Petition, this Honble Commission, Disputes Redressal Commission, Apex Courtwhile, GhasiRam, Ors, Court, Court, AIR, the High Court, Consumer Protection Act, Apex Court, the High Court, the State Commission, Cellular Operators Association of India, the High Courts, the High Court, State, the High Court, Thansingh Nathmal, Court, the High Court, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd., State of, Liability, Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co., Hawkesford, the House of Lords, London Express Newspapers Ltd., AC 368, the Privy Council, Tobago, State, Mask and Co., Court, The High Court, Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Union of India, Bench, the High Court, Court, Court, Muzaffarnagar AIR 1969, SC, Court, Thansingh Nathmal, Taxes, the High Court, the Civil Court, the Civil Court, Fair Air Engineers Pvt, Lucknow Development Authority, Parliament, Court, Consumer Forum, the State Commission, the State Commission, the State Commission-, State Commission, District Forum, State, District Forum, State, the Stat Commission, District Forum, State Commission, the State Commission, the State Commission, the National Commission, the State Commission, the National Commission, every State Commission, the District Forum, the State Commission, State, the State Commission, the National Commission, the High Court, Court, the State Commission, Cellular Operators Association of India, High Court, Honble Supreme Court, Advance Scientific Equipment Ltd., Photochemical Development Corporation Ltd., Court, the High Court, the State Commission, the Apex Court, œsufficient, Delhi High Court, New Bank of India Vs, M/s Marvels, Court, Court, Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962, Supreme Court, Court, Court, Court, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kailash Devi and Ors, AIR, Scale 108, Supreme Court, Court, Supreme Court, AnshulAggarwal, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, SC, Court, Court, AnshulAggarwal, CicilyKallarackal Vs, Vehicle Factory, Honble Supreme Court, NOIDA, SC, Court, Court, Court, Legislature, Circumstances, the District Forum, the State Commission, The State Commission, ORDER Appeals, AIR 2004, Apex Court, Ors, Learned Amicus, Rupees Twenty Five Thousand, Commission

ORDINAL: First, first, first, third, second

FAC: the District Forum, the District Forum, the District Forum

GPE: Civil, Orissa, Neville, ER, Trinidad, Baburam, India, R.B., p.a.

WORK_OF_ART: The High Court

MONEY: fifty per cent

PRODUCT: DLT 558

NORP: Punjab, mans

PERCENT: 9%