In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner was rendering advisory services to entity in Singapore. The petitioner had repeatedly filed submissions before the concerned authorities (Adjudicating Authority as well as Appellate Authority) explaining that it is rendering “advisory services to overseas group companies with respect to investment avenues in transportation sector after performing its own analysis and due diligence”.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while restoring the award of Arbitral Tribunal observed that it is well-settled that courts ought not to interfere with the arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that ‘the purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment’, has been excluded from the purview of ‘commercial purpose’ as such purchase of commercial goods for earning livelihood by means of self-employment, will not exclude such a buyer from the purview of the “consumer”.
In present facts of the case, it was held by the National Commission that Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, benefit of ambiguity/doubt needs to go to the Consumer.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court while allowing the appeal have observed that the report of a surveyor appointed by the insurance company may be considered as evidence while settling a claim, more evidence on record could be used to rebut the contents of the same.
In present facts of the case, it was held that Section 19(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act clearly forbids the court in appeal, confirmation or revision, the interference with the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that the sanction by the government was bad, save and except in cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that the failure of justice had occurred by such invalidity.
In present facts of the case, while relying upon the Judgment of Supreme Court it was held that auction purchaser could not be held to be a ‘consumer’ and the lower for a do not have Jurisdiction to entertain issues pertaining to auction.
In present facts of the case, the National Commission while relying upon the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017 observed that there will be zero liability of a customer where the unauthorized transaction occurs in events involving contributory negligence on the part of the Bank and have accordingly allowed the Petition.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, in case of any ambiguity, the clauses must be read in favour of consumer. The hyper technicalities cannot create obstacles for the Consumer.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation.
