<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (8) TMI 1030 - DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106096</link>
    <description>The Commission allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely receipt of the option letter for conversion under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondents failed to prove the late arrival of the letter, resulting in a ruling in favor of the appellant for compensation and legal costs incurred during the proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:18:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 1030 - DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106096</link>
      <description>The Commission allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely receipt of the option letter for conversion under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondents failed to prove the late arrival of the letter, resulting in a ruling in favor of the appellant for compensation and legal costs incurred during the proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>