Corporate Law : भारत में बढ़ते हुए बाजार के प्रभाव को देखते हुए भा...
Corporate Law : Explore the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on corporate claims under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, redefining 'person' and e...
Corporate Law : Explore whether businesses are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. Analyze court judgments, recent changes, and the ongoi...
Corporate Law : Explore the historical roots of consumer protection in India, from ancient laws to post-independence regulations. Uncover the evol...
Corporate Law : Explore impact of Jan Vishwas Act 2023 on Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Discover revised penalties and its role in promoting ease of ...
Corporate Law : Explore CCPA's proposed Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing. Understand definitions, application, and implica...
Corporate Law : Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) takes action against Amazon for deceptive sale of Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad swee...
Corporate Law : Dive into 2023 draft guidelines by Government of India for prevention and regulation of dark patterns in advertising and e-commerc...
Corporate Law : Guidelines for health and wellness celebrities, influencers, and virtual influencers, including disclosure, due diligence, and fac...
Corporate Law : The amendment exempts the garment or hosiery industry selling in loose or open from 6 declarations required under the Legal Metrol...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court's verdict on whether a company's purchase of a car for a director's personal use falls under 'commercial purpose' as...
Corporate Law : Court rules against Havells in hair trimmer explosion case, emphasizing product safety and consumer rights under the CPA 2019. Lea...
Corporate Law : Compensation by its very nature, had to be just. For suffering, no part of which was the claimant-appellant’s own fault, she had...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court's ruling: Consumers can't file complaints against the Revenue Department for excessive GST levied by hotel manag...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the National Commission allowed the Revision Petition filed by the Complainant by making observation...
Corporate Law : Stakeholders invited to comment on Draft Rules for Automatic Catch Weighing Instruments. Submit feedback via email by January 8, 2...
Corporate Law : Draft rules for clinical electrical thermometers under Legal Metrology Act, 2009, are open for stakeholder comments. Submit feedba...
Corporate Law : Government seeks stakeholder feedback on draft rules for non-invasive automated sphygmomanometers. Submit comments by 30th Decembe...
Corporate Law : CCPA's new guidelines target misleading ads in the coaching sector, ensuring transparency and truth in advertisements for coaching...
Corporate Law : Govt seeks feedback on labeling food wrapping paper and aluminum foils in both weight (kg) and size (meter x meter) for accurate c...
In present facts of the case, the National Commission while dismissing the Complaint observed that in the absence of any omission, rashness negligence much less gross negligence the allegation made against the Opposite Parties have not been established and hence no relief could be made out.
In present facts the National Commission dismissed the Appeal by observing that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order.
The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) against the Order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow.
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 where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
In present facts of the case, the revision petition was filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which assails the order dated 05.05.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh allowing the appeal and dismissing order dated 28.01.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhatinda.
