Corporate Law : This article explains how consumer law regulates brand endorsements. The key takeaway is that endorsers face penalties only when m...
Corporate Law : Authorities have clarified that compulsory service charges violate consumer law, reaffirming that tips must be voluntary and canno...
Corporate Law : Overview of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, its key definitions, the establishment of CCPA, product liability, and penalties for...
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 : The CCPA imposed penalties on coaching institutes after finding that advertisements highlighted successful candidates while hiding...
Corporate Law : The regulator held that selective disclosure of course details and inflated success claims misled aspirants. The ruling reinforces...
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 : The CCPA held that failure to disclose the specific courses attended by successful NEET and IIT-JEE candidates amounted to conceal...
Corporate Law : CCPA held that sale of toys without mandatory BIS certification violated the Consumer Protection Act and Toys Quality Control Orde...
Corporate Law : Claims of high success rates in competitive exams were not supported by complete data or documentation. The decision emphasizes th...
Goods and Services Tax : The authority examined whether automatic service charges violate consumer rights. It ruled that default billing of such charges is...
Company Law : The CCPA held that specific developmental claims such as early crawling and walking were misleading as they lacked scientific stud...
Corporate Law : The Department of Consumer Affairs has clarified that customary units like inches, feet, and dozen may be used as supplementary de...
Corporate Law : The 2026 amendment introduces detailed metrological, technical, and safety standards for non-automated blood pressure devices. The...
Corporate Law : The Ministry of Consumer Affairs is seeking comments on draft rules to amend the Legal Metrology (General) Rules for non-invasive ...
Corporate Law : India's Department of Consumer Affairs released draft rules for clinical electrical thermometers for continuous measurement, seeki...
Corporate Law : India's CCPA has issued guidelines effective May 27, 2025, to regulate the listing and sale of radio equipment, including walkie-t...
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.
Explore impact of Jan Vishwas Act 2023 on Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Discover revised penalties and its role in promoting ease of doing business.
In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition was filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which assails order dated 06.02.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
In present facts of the case, the revision petition was filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assailing the order dated 11.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur.
In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 14.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’).
