In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition (RP) was filed under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.05.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal.
In present facts of the case the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that Railway Personnel were liable for ‘deficiency of Service’ when the Complainant was detained forcefully from the train without letting him to unload his luggage due to which the luggage was lost and the Complainant have to bear the financial loss.
In present facts of the case, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that when Government of India had itself exempted the Petitioner from any obligation to verify the Interest Subsidy Schemes received from any Bank other than the Petitioner/Bank itself then the Petitioner cannot be hold responsible.
In present facts of the case the Appeal was under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in Consumer Complaint No. 06/2011, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed.
In present facts of the case, the present Revision Petition was filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 28.07.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that the sale proceeds of the seized vehicle by the Respondent would be calculated at the depreciation rate @ 40% of the actual invoice value of the Motor Vehicle.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in “exceptional circumstances” if a corporate debtor is an MSME, it is not necessary for promoters to compete with other resolution applicants to retain control of the corporate debtor.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Enforcement Officer appointed under Section 3 of FERA, 1973 was authorized to file complaint under provisions of FERA even after getting repealed by the virtue of S. 49 of FEMA under the heading ‘Repeal and Savings’.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that once the undue advantage i.e., any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that he accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section 7, for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of will held that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.
