Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)
Acts
  • Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995."
  • provisions of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act 1995, Rules and Regulations
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)
Acts
  • Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995."
  • provisions of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act 1995, Rules and Regulations
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

These consolidated orders dispose of two first appeals (First Appeal Nos.462 & 463 of 2021) filed by the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) against similar orders dated 04.08.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala. The written reasons herein are taken principally from First Appeal No.462 of 2021 (PUDA v. Sukhdarshan Singh).

In First Appeal No.462 of 2021, the complainant (allottee) was allotted residential plot No.226 (200 sq. yards) at PUDA Enclave, Nabha vide allotment letter dated 21.08.2015. The tentative price was Rs.14,40,000 with 25% initial payment of Rs.3,60,000 already paid; the complainant later paid an additional Rs.3,09,600 (first instalment), bringing total deposits to Rs.6,69,600. The allotment letter provided that possession would be handed over after completion of development works or within 18 months from allotment, whichever was earlier, and included other terms referencing the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development (PRTPD) Act, 1995 and potential forfeiture on breach.

The complainant alleged failure by PUDA to develop the site and to hand over possession within the stipulated time, and filed a consumer complaint seeking refund and compensation. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed PUDA to refund Rs.6,69,600 with 6% interest from the date of allotment and to pay Rs.11,000 as compensation, relying on an earlier State Commission judgment (Raj Rani v. PUDA). PUDA appealed.

In First Appeal No.463 of 2021, facts were similar: allotment of plot No.189 (256.66 sq. yards) in Scheduled Caste category on 21.08.2015, initial deposit of Rs.4,60,800 and an identical complaint that the OP failed to hand over possession. The District Commission ordered refund of Rs.4,60,800 with interest and Rs.11,000 compensation; PUDA appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the District Commission correctly found a deficiency in service by PUDA and was justified in directing refund and compensation to the complainant.
  2. Whether the terms of the allotment letter — in particular clause 6(i) (possession deemed handed over if not taken within stipulated period) and the contractual remedies/forfeiture provisions — were properly applied by the District Commission.
  3. Whether the District Commission was correct to rely on the State Commission judgment in Raj Rani v. PUDA given the facts and documents in the present cases (including evidence that PUDA offered possession and later processed a refund).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (PUDA / Opposite Party) — Principal Arguments

  • The District Commission confined itself to a "hyper-technical" view and failed to consider the merits and the contractual terms of the allotment letter.
  • The allotment letter expressly provided that possession would be handed over after development works or within 18 months (clause 6(i)), and the allottee would be deemed to have been handed possession if he did not take it within the stipulated period; those terms governed the parties' rights and obligations.
  • PUDA asserted that development work was carried out and that public notices/communications (public notice dated 28.09.2017 and letter dated 18.10.2017, Ex. OP-2 and related documents) invited the allottee to take possession; the allottee acted mala fide by not taking possession and instituting the complaint.
  • After giving due notice under the PRTPD Act, 1995, PUDA issued an office order dated 20.11.2019 to refund the allottee after deductions; a cheque was sent (forwarding letter dated 01.01.2020) and the allottee accepted/refunded but concealed this fact in the consumer complaint.
  • PUDA sought admission of additional evidence before this Commission (MA No.1473/2021) and relied upon a Partial Completion Certificate dated 08.01.2019 asserting completion of basic amenities on 30.04.2018.

Respondent (Complainant) — Principal Arguments

  • The District Commission's order was well-reasoned and correctly allowed the complaint against PUDA for deficiency in service.
  • The complainant relied on the averments made before the District Commission and opposed the appeal, seeking dismissal of PUDA's appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Raj Rani v. PUDA (State Commission, Punjab & Chandigarh) — cited in District Commission's order The District Commission relied upon this State Commission judgment to allow the complaint and direct refund/compensation in the impugned order. This Commission observed that the District Commission had relied on that judgment, but found the facts of the present case different (in particular, evidence of offer of possession and subsequent refund). The Commission held that the District Commission had wrongly relied on that judgment and that it was not binding on the present facts; the reliance was therefore set aside in allowing the appeals.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission conducted a fact-based and clause-focused analysis grounded in the record admitted before it. The reasoning proceeded in the following steps (as expressed in the opinion):

  1. Identification of admitted facts: The allotment letters (memo No. PDA-EO-PUDA (A-5)/2015/14031 and similar) and the amounts deposited by the complainants were accepted facts. The complainant in First Appeal No.462 had deposited Rs.3,60,000 (25%) and Rs.3,09,600 (1st instalment), totalling Rs.6,69,600; the allotment letter terms were material and binding.
  2. Examination of relevant clauses of the allotment letter: The Commission reproduced clause 6(i) (possession to be handed over after development work or within 18 months, whichever earlier; if possession is not taken by the allottee within the stipulated period it shall be deemed handed over), clause 7(i) (governance by PRTPD Act, 1995) and clause 7(iii) (forfeiture and consequences on breach under Section 45(3) of PRTPD Act, 1995).
  3. Consideration of additional evidence placed before this Commission: PUDA was permitted (MA No.1473 of 2021) to place on record documents including:
    • Letter(s) dated 18.10.2017 (Ex. OP-2 and memo No.12504/12505) offering possession and advising the allottee to deposit remaining amount under an Amnesty Scheme;
    • Partial Completion Certificate (memo No.307 dated 08.01.2019) stating that development works (roads, PH services, electrical services) were completed on 30.04.2018;
    • Office order No.10104-06 dated 20.11.2019 ordering refund after due deductions as per PRTPD Act, 1995 and related policy; forwarding letter dated 01.01.2020 and a cheque for refund (amounts reflected in the record and postage receipt).
  4. Application of the allotment terms to the facts: The Commission found that PUDA had called upon the complainant to take possession and that the complainant had neither paid remaining instalments nor taken possession. Under clause 6(i), failure to take possession within the stipulated period results in deemed handing over on the due date. The Commission therefore treated the allottee's conduct as breaching the allotment terms.
  5. Assessment of alleged concealment and refund: The record before this Commission showed that PUDA had ordered and sent a refund cheque (for a specified amount) and that the complainant had accepted the refund; the Commission concluded that the complainant had concealed this material fact before the District Commission.
  6. Evaluation of District Commission's reliance on precedent: The District Commission had relied on Raj Rani v. PUDA to allow the complaint. This Commission held that facts in the present cases were different and that the District Commission wrongly relied upon that decision; accordingly the reliance was rejected as not applicable to these facts.
  7. Conclusion from the above: The Commission found force in the appellant's contention that there was no deficiency in service by PUDA. On that basis, and having considered the allotment terms and additional documentary evidence, the Commission allowed both appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the District Commission.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: Both appeals are ALLOWED and the impugned orders dated 04.08.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala, are set aside.

Direct consequences and directions given by the Commission (as stated in the opinion):

  • First Appeal No.462 of 2021: The appellant had deposited Rs.4,66,276 at the time of filing the appeal. That amount, together with any accrued interest, was ordered to be remitted by this Commission's Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The appellant/OP may approach the District Commission for release of that amount and the District Commission is to pass an appropriate order after the expiry of the limitation period in accordance with law.
  • First Appeal No.463 of 2021: The appellant had deposited Rs.3,22,593.50 at the time of filing the appeal. That amount, together with any accrued interest, was ordered to be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The appellant/OP may approach the District Commission for release of that amount and the District Commission is to pass an appropriate order after expiry of the limitation period in accordance with law.

The opinion does not identify or establish any new legal precedent; it resolves the appeals on the basis of the facts, the contractual terms of the allotment letters, the additional documents placed on record, and a determination that the District Commission's reliance on the cited State Commission case did not apply to these facts.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    PUDA, Patiala v. Sukhdarshan Singh

    ADDITIONAL BENCH

    STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

    PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

    1) First Appeal No.462 of 2021 Date of institution : 13.12.2021 Reserved on : 15.07.2022 Date of decision : 29.07.2022

    Punjab Urban Development Authority Patiala through Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala.

    …..Appellant/Opposite party

    Versus

    Sukhdarshan Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh resident of Ward No.12, Lehragagga, District Sangrur, Now resident of H.No.47/2, Professor Enclave, opposite Punjabi University, Patiala. .….Respondent /Complainant

    Present:-

    For the appellant : Sh. Anuj Kohli, Advocate For respondent : Sh. J.S. Bhinder, Advocate

    AND

    2) First Appeal No.463 of 2021 Date of institution : 13.12.2021 Reserved on : 15.07.2022 Date of decision : 29.07.2022

    Punjab Urban Development Authority Patiala through its Chairman. …..Appellant/Opposite party

    Versus

    Tirlochan Singh S/o Jaswant Singh aged about 49 years resident of House No.2068/1, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

    .….Respondent /Complainant

    First Appeals against similar orders dated 04.08.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala.

    1

    2

    Quorum:-

    Mr. H.P.S.Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member

    Present:-

    For the appellant : Sh.Anuj Kohli, Advocate For respondent : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Advocate

    KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER

    This order will dispose of the above noted two (2) first appeals preferred against the similar impugned orders dated 04.08.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (in short, "the District Commission"), as the questions of facts and law involved in both the appeals are similar and these appeals have been preferred by the same appellant/opposite party against the different respondent(s)/ complainant(s). The facts are taken from First Appeal No.462 of 2021 titled as "PUDA Vs. Sukhdarshan Singh".

    2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

    First Appeal No.462 of 2021

    3. Brief facts of the case for disposal of the appeal are that the complainant was the allottee of residential plot No.226 measuring 200 Sq. yards in General Category, at PUDA Enclave, Nabha on Free Hold Basis, vide memo No.PDA-EO-PUDA (A-5)/2015/14031 dated 21.08.2015. The tentative price of plot was Rs.14,40,000/- calculated @ Rs.7200/- per Sq. yard and the initial 25% amount of Rs.3,60,000/- had already been deposited by the

    3

    complainant. The balance payment of Rs.10,80,000/- being 75% of the tentative price of the plot was to be paid by the complainant in lumpsum without any interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in 6 equated half- yearly instalments along with interest @ 12 % per annum as indicated in the schedule given in the allotment letter. The OP had promised to remove the trees, to provide water supply, sewerage piping, construction of roads, electric polls, construction of parks and to provide other basic necessities and to hand over the possession of plot after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever was earlier. But the OP failed to fulfill its promise, as such, complainant was liable to pay interest from the date of offer of possession and he would deposit the remaining instalments after the offer of possession of the said plot. Many other allottees had surrendered their flats as the OP failed to fulfill its promise and had cheated the complainants. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the OP but it failed to hand over the possession of the plot despite the same, rather it issued show cause notice dated 11.04.2017 to the complainant and demanded 2nd instalment of the plot in question, which was duly replied by the complainant vide reply dated 26.05.2017. In response to reply, the OP again issued a letter No.7505 dated 19.06.2017, but failed to disclose the date on which the possession would be delivered to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Commission and sought refund of Rs.3,60,000/- as initial 25%

    4

    amount, Rs.3,09,600/- as amount of 1stinstallment along with interest @ 18 % per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment.

    4. The complaint was contested by the OP before the District Commission. The OP raised certain preliminary objections as stated in the written reply, which are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. On merits, OP stated that the plots were always allotted on 'as is where as basis'. However, the concerned department of Division Engineer (Civil) had been making every effort to develop the concerned area of the PUDA ENCLAVE at the earliest. The development procedure was to be undertaken by the Executive Engineer's Office only not by the OP. Moreover, the detailed status report of the development in the concerned area showed that till 08.07.2017, the development of road was 95% completed and other services were also almost entirely undertaken and the possession of the allotted plots was to be handed over at the earliest. Moreover, the work regarding electricity cables was almost completed by the month of September 2017. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    5. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions and the District Commission after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties,

    5

    allowed the complaint of the complainant, vide impugned order as under:-

    "19. So keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon'ble State Commission Punjab Chandigarh in the case titled as Raj Rani Vs. PUDA (Supra), the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,69,600/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of allotment letter till realization and also to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation". Aggrieved with the same the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

    6. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the written submissions filed by respondent and the record of the case.

    7. Learned counsel for the appellant/OP, has vehemently contended that the District Commission passed the impugned order without touching the merits of the case at all and without adverting at all to the issues raised before it. The District Commission had confined itself to a hyper-technical view, which is far from ground realities and merits of the case have not been considered at all. The learned counsel further contended that in the allotment letter, it is mentioned that the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allottee after carrying out the development in the project or within 18 months from the date of allotment letter whichever is earlier and the same was subject to other conditions enshrined in the said letter, setting out the terms between the parties. After carrying out the development in the project, the allottees were called upon to take possession of the plot allotted to them vide public notice dated

    6

    28.09.2017 and communication dated 18.10.2017 was also addressed to the respondent/complainant. However, he acted malafidely and instead of taking possession of the plot and raise construction, he instituted a false, frivolous, vexacious and misconceived complaint before the District Commission. The learned counsel further contended that after giving due notice and opportunity to the complainant under the PRTPD Act, 1995, the appellant vide office order dated 20.11.2019 ordered the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant after due deduction as per the PRTPD Act 1995, Rules and Policy in this regard. A cheque for refund amount was already sent to the complainant along with the forwarding letter but the respondent/complainant failed to bring the said fact on record for malafide reasons and also failed to challenge the said order in any manner. Alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the learned counsel prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.

    8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has vehemently contended that the order passed by the District Commission is a well reasoned order and it had rightly allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint filed before the District Commission and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

    9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

    7

    10. Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant applied for allotment of 200 sq. yard plot with the OP and the same was allotted to him i.e. plot No.226 at PUDA Enclave, Nabha on Free Hold Basis, vide allotment letter bearing memo No.PDA-EO-PUDA (A-5)/2015/ 14031 dated 21.08.2015, Ex.C-1. As per Clause 3.1 of the allotment letter, payment of Rs.3,60,000/- made by the complainant was adjusted towards initial 25% of the sale price of the plot. As per Clause 3.2 of the allotment letter, the balance 75% amount i.e Rs.10,80,000/- was to be paid in lumpsum without any interest within 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter or in 6 equated half yearly instalments along with interest, as per table given therein. The complainant paid another amount of Rs.3,09,600/- as 1stinstalment, which was not disputed by the OP. Thus, a total sum of Rs.6,69,600/- stood deposited towards the price of the plot. As per Clause 6(i) of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be delivered after completion of developments works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, whichever was earlier. The complainant alleged that the OP failed to develop the site and to deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated period. Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission, which was allowed vide impugned order as above. Aggrieved with the same the appellant/OP filed the present complaint for setting aside the same.

    11. The main grievance of the appellant/OP in the present appeal is that the District Commission has passed an unjust, unfair

    8

    and self contradictory order against the established facts on record. Whereas, the factual position leading to the filing of the present appeal is that as per terms of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be handed over to the allottee after carrying out the development work in the project or within 18 months from the date of the allotment letter, whichever is earlier and the same was subject to other conditions enshrined in the said letter clearly setting out the terms between the parties. To determine this controversy we have perused the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, inter alia, which are material as the same is governing the alleged issues and is binding on the parties. The relevant clauses of the allotment letter are reproduced as under:-

    6(i) "Possession of the said plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at the site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. In case possession is not taken by the allotee within the stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been handed over on the due date."

    7(i) "This allotment shall be governed by the provisions of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act 1995, Rules and Regulations framed there under, as amended from time to time."

    7(iii) "In case of breach of any condition(s) of auction, allotment or of regulation or non-payment of any amount due together with the penalty, the plot or building, as the case may be, shall be liable to be resumed and in that case an amount not exceeding 10% of the total amount of consideration money(Price) plus interest and any other fees due till that date shall be forfeited as per Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995."

    12. The learned counsel for the appellant has orally contended that some of the vital documents which could not be placed before the District Commission, at the time of filing of the

    9

    written reply, have been relied upon in support of their contentions and accordingly the MA No.1473 of 2021 for additional evidence was allowed by this Commission to place on record certain documents, which are relevant and important for the just adjudication of the present dispute. A bare perusal of letter bearing memo No.12504 dated 18.10.2017, Ex. OP-2, shows that the appellant/OP sent a letter addressed to the complainant regarding offering of possession of said plot to him under clause 6(i) of the allotment letter as it developed the site. Further vide letter bearing memo No.12505 dated 18.10.2017, placed on record in additional evidence, shows that the OP gave one more opportunity to the respondent/complainant to deposit the remaining amount under the Amnesty Scheme, which was published in Newspaper 'Ajit' on 28.09.2017, Annexure A-5. The appellant/OP further relied on Partial Completion Certificate bearing memo No.307 dated 08.01.2019, wherein it has been stated that S.E. P.DA has reported that development works for providing basic amenities (Roads, PH services and Electrical Services) of Open Jail Site (PUDA Enclave), Nabha have been completed on 30.04.2018 as per sanctioned layout plan. As per clause 7(viii) of the allotment letter (Supra) the appellant/OP is entitled to forfeit 10% of the total amount of consideration money plus interest as per provisions of PRTPD Act, 1995 in case of breach of any condition. A perusal of office order bearing No.10104-06 dated 20.11.2019, placed on record by the appellant in the appeal, shows that after giving due notice and opportunity to the complainant under PRTPD Act, 1995, the appellant ordered the refund of the amount deposited

    10

    by the complainant after due deduction as per the said Act, Rules and policy in this regard. Accordingly a cheque for refund amounting to Rs.4,65,931/- was sent to the complainant along with forwarding letter dated 01.01.2020, through registered post. The postal receipt is duly placed on record by the appellant. But the said fact regarding refund of the amount by the appellant/OP to the

    respondent/complainant has been concealed by the

    respondent/complainant while filing the consumer complaint before the District Commission.

    13. In view of above, we are of the opinion that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the respondent/complainant was called upon to take possession of the plot by the OPs but he neither paid the remaining instalments nor came forward to take possession of the said plot. As per clause 6(i) of the allotment letter(Supra), it is clearly stated that in case possession is not taken by the allottee within the stipulated period, it shall be deemed to be handed over on the due date. Further, in the light of the said clause we are of the considered view that the question of possession and also the consequences of violations had inter-alia been clearly dealt with the aforesaid allotment letter, which are binding on the parties. Moreover, such condition of the allotment letter have never been challenged by the complainant at any stage and he has willfully accepted the same with all its terms and conditions. Accordingly, the respondent/complainant himself breached the conditions mentioned in the above said clause and

    11

    failed to deposit the remaining installments on time despite ample opportunities for the same having been given by the appellant/OP. Moreover, the refunded amount has already been accepted by the complainant. Therefore, we find force in the contention raised by the appellant/OP and there is no deficiency in service on its part.

    14. The plea of the respondent/complainant is that the District Commission rightly accepted the complaint by relying on the judgment passed by this Commission in the case bearing CC No.56 of 2019 titled as "Raj Rani Vs. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority(PUDA)" decided on 13.06.2019. But the facts of the present case are different from the cited case, as in this case the complainant has concealed the material fact regarding cancellation of the unit and acceptance of refund of Rs.4,65,931/-, which was sent by the appellant/OP through cheque vide letter dated 01.01.2020. Hence, the District Commission has wrongly relied upon the said judgment which is not binding upon us.

    15. Sequel to our above discussion, we allow the appeal of the appellant and the impugned order of the District Commission is hereby set aside.

    16. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.4,66,276/- at the time of filing of the appeal with this Commission. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The Appellant/OP may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the

    12

    appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.

    First Appeal No.463 of 2021

    17. Similarly, in this case, the complainant was allotted residential plot No.189 measuring 256.66 Sq. yards in Scheduled Caste category, at PUDA Enclave, Nabha, vide memo No.PDA/EO/PUDA (A-5)/2015/409 dated 21.08.2015. The tentative price of plot was Rs.19,40,350/- calculated @ Rs.7200/- per Sq. yard and the initial 25% amount of Rs.4,60,800/- had been deposited by the complainant. The complainant alleged that the OP failed to develop the site and to deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated period, as discussed in main appeal. Other averments are similar to that of First Appeal No.462 of 2021. The OP filed reply on the similar lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.462 of 2021.

    18. The District Commission, after going through the evidence produced by the parties on the record and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order dated 04.08.2021, directing the OP party to refund the amount of Rs.4,60,800/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of allotment letter till realization and to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/OP.

    19. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.462 of 2021, there is merit in this appeal also, as such, this appeal is also allowed and impugned order is hereby set aside.

    13

    20. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.3,22,593.50/- at the time of filing of the appeal with this Commission. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The appellant/OP may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.

    21. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and non-sitting of this Commission due to pandemic of Covid-19.

    (H.P.S. Mahal)

    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

    (KIRAN SIBAL)

    MEMBER

    July 29th, 2022

    (dv)

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    PUDA, Patiala v. Sukhdarshan Singh
    (Jul 29, 2022)