Managing Director (Meda Srinivas), Jagadeeswari Housing Corporation, Rajahmundry v. The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed
Provisions considered
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 s. 21(b)
Judgment
Cause title
Between: Managing Director (Meda Srinivas), Jagadeeswari Housing Corporation, Rajahmundry ... Petitioner
And The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, represented by its Registrar, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8521 OF 2012
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The writ petition assails the order dated 16.2.2012 in F.A.I.A. No.415 of 2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (the State Commission). By the said order, the State Commission dismissed the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay of 440 days in filing appeal being F.A.S.R. No.874 of 2012 against the order dated
Operative part
22.10.2010 in C.C.No.31 of 2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Rajahmundry. After making submissions for some time, the Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition and approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) March 30, 2012 NOTE: Dispatch order copy by 02.4.2012. (By order) YS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — s. 21(b).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.