Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the guru nanak dev university amritsar act 1969 Court: punjab state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc chandigarh

Mar 03 2014 (TRI)

Barinder Kaur Vs. National College of Physical Education

Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh

..... of education, patiala vide government of punjab notification no. 13/40/07-6 edu 1 dated 9.5.07 for all the physical education colleges affiliated to punjabi university, patiala and guru nanak dev university, amritsar and panjab university, chandigarh for taking admission in the b.p.e. three years course. the complainant after passing the required test; organized by the college issued an admission slip and ..... entertain and try the present complaint; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(d) of the act. on merits, it has been stated that swaran singh is grand-father of the complainant. it was denied that she was residing with maternal grand-father. it was denied that ..... question of deficiency of service. such matters cannot be entertained by the consumer forum under the consumer protection act, 1986. further honble supreme court in bihar school examination board versus suresh prasad sinha?, 2010 (1) clt 255 (sc) observed that the education boards and universities are not service provider and the complaints against them are not maintainable. the honble apex court in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2013 (TRI)

Nikita Sharma Vs. M/S Iiht (Indian Institute of Hardware Technology) A ...

Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh

..... forum ? ). 2. facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (in short, ??the act ? ) against the respondents, pleading that she completed bca study course from shri guru teg bahahdur college, amritsar, affiliated to guru nanak dev university. for further studies of i.n.e.t. course, she went to the office of respondents no.1 to 3 ..... at amritsar, as they had displayed on their sineboards ??i.i.h.t. ? , which is a repudiated company for it/achnp ..... and join the other course. ex.c-10 is the advertisement given by respondents no.1 and 2, mentioning ??iiht, regional office and centre, lawrence road chowk, near novelty sweets, amritsar ? and 100% placement was assured and this advertisement allured the appellant to join the course. the licence granted by iiht, noida to respondent no.2 was valid upto 14.06 ..... written arguments filed on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3, in addition to the pleadings, it was further submitted that the answering respondents are authorized franchisee of iiht in amritsar and the licence ex.r-13 was issued and the agreement entered by the answering respondent with the iiht is ex.r-14. the appellant started attending the course in .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //