Tms WRIT PETETEON IS FELED UNBER 1+1.-§:*11?»:i;:';.;%:f*;--: iris?' .
01? 'THE CONSTITUTION OF' .¥ND§A PRAYENG"~f§'{} *QiEAS}if
THE ORDER 1:>'r.7.3.03, VIBE ANNJ3 Arm1.":'=c;:"'€.2.UAS:~;_'«*':*:-£I:: '*
ORDER DT.3_2.9,08, VIBE ANN»?
This 'Writ petition coming t1pi4'fpf".?i1~£:iiB1é":;33:3?
011 this day, thfi SABHAHIT' -3.; ci€:}ivereLi_ t%1eVfia%:fu.;1g;_.H
V
This writ petition gaashing cf we
order (Iated issued by the
Karnataka ' 'fiedressal Commission
ai§§.;i§V"'€:::; quash the carrier dated
12.9,2§0&8" E3611 issued mzejier Section 2?
of zhg _cox;$:;;mverV:1§v:o£eL<;£ic§§Act, 1995.
2,,'-L, §?.'»if§ avéiifiii' the writ petition that the petitimnerr
ifs of the Links Privatt: Limited, a campany
filurzder the Cornpanieg Act and 'aha mid
c0mpa:iy;.hafi entemd inta 3:1 agreement with the I'€S§){}1{1d€fii
A V _" 5;1:L'I~3;.8.2GG4 for purchase of two flats in tha pmpsrijg {(3 ha
tievelapeé by the said Sompany. The gveiitioner was $191; a
'signaioiy to the agreement with "the respondsni nor the Joint
VJ
development agraemeat wim the ownars of +A;:1: K V'
award was passed against flit?' (}C:/-- with annum from
3 1.8.2004
131116 figecufion petitien
though the prmeedings
‘for executing the said
axva1d.7:zN#E:¢fi« i$’31;cdf against the pfititiexzfir and
t1::ereaft<A§i",V. fi neyfice: issued "uniier Section 21? sf the
Consguiaiztgr Pfciefifieiin Efict. $iZ1C€ the petitionex" was mat a
~,:»1_gree111éfi'1t, no award has beau gasseé against
the Presiciafit fif $16 cemyany, RBW cauid
not—2;1av¢"be¢%1Aissued nor any notice he iffifillfld under Section
(ref Consumer Protection Act and iiharefom, the writ
31$ fiicd far quashing of the said orders.
3. We have heard the learned counsci appcaxéag for
VV the pctitionerg
V,/’
Rs.50,000/~ for appearance before the
the petitioner did not appear before the Com.;_riie:eiei:”.rvviee};iit..e_A ”
execution of the bond, notice xiizieler’ « the
Consumer Protection Act has been as
to the Writ petition which writ VV
petition. In View of the feet th.f-:t”‘N ‘Viéimfxed Ao:1″”? has
been recalled on the bond
for i?s.50,0G0 -gghe oats of heazéxxg on
18.9.2003, Section 27 of the
Consumer, .wleerefoze, the question of
quashiing ‘NEW on 7.3.2008 which has
been Ieceiiieel not wise and notice under
27 of fi1e,C.onsumer Protection Act has been issued
~..’r,}:;e bond executed by the pefitioner for
her appearance before the Consumer
Diépute.e ‘Re{‘:11’esea1 Commissioner and Annexuie–F to the
pe’t;i’tien has only directed the petitioner te agapear before
*t}:1e– Commission on 189.2008 and in default of appearaazce,
% ….i*:§is stated that petition will he heaxti and ciecided according
U}
to iaw. The fact that petitiox1¢fr…. +5-;x€czj.xt’éd” ”
Rs.50,000/«- and NEW issued to vharféu
recalled (3132 28.3.2008 in vi£~’?{2;*’«–Qf th£3′-aféesuticfii1:}f«–.t1;e–5boi1d. ‘
cannot be disputed by the View contents
of A1mexures–E I Writ petition.
Accordingly: W?’ ~.l.10I£1fAA\’t}1a’£4:; made: out for
quashing or quashing
th-3: notiggfv Protection Act
procizicged to the writ petifian. Under the
circumsgfatéfies,’ WE the pefitiofl is -zievoid of any
me;€§ts”.113{i fc;1:_1oxr;’i12g order:
T3-_le WILi;’§é”£C$ €fitiOfl is dismissed. {*3
gal * .
Chiei Sustxce
sal-
‘judge
ksv**
Index: Yes] No