3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, inter alia, praying that Regulation 15 of the Regulations be struck down on the ground that the said Regulation being ultra vires of the said Act, and further the review application filed by the appellant should be re heard by the National Commission granting an opportunity to present the case by making oral arguments.
The facts of the case briefly are as follows 3.1 The appellant filed a companyplaint before the District Forum under the said Act.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a review application before the National Commission resulting in dismissal by an order dated September 24, 2012.
64 of 2013 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, questioning the vires of Regulation 15 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the said Act .
A revision petition was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the National Commission which set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission vide an order dated August 14, 2012 on the basis of the agreements inter se between the parties.
Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against the said order before the State Commission resulting in dismissal by an order dated November 19, 2007.
1 HDFC Bank Ltd. for indulging in unfair trade practice on the ground of failure to provide professional services to the appellant resulting in pre payment of loan to respondent No.1 seeking to levy a penalty for pre payment.
The foundation of the filing of such companyplaint was an allegation made against respondent No.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated January 7, 2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.
3.2 By an order dated August 2, 2007, the District Forum held in favour of the appellant.
