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 : CCPA imposed ₹1 lakh penalties on two food companies for using misleading 100% claims that did not match the actual composition ...
Corporate Law : The government has exempted smaller edible oil packs and minor edible oils from standardisation requirements. The exemption is aim...
Corporate Law : CCPA fined digital platforms for using interface designs that influenced consumer choices without clear and informed consent. The ...
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 : The CCPA ruled that incomplete product details, unverifiable regulatory credentials, and missing mandatory disclosures violated th...
Corporate Law : The CCPA held that automatically adding a service charge to restaurant bills violated the Consumer Protection Act and the CCPA Gui...
Corporate Law : CCPA held that advertising bread as 100% Whole Wheat despite containing only 87% wheat flour was misleading. The authority ordered...
Corporate Law : The Authority ruled that selectively withholding course information and presenting disclaimers in illegible font misled prospectiv...
Corporate Law : The CCPA held that failure to prominently disclose licensing requirements, frequency details, and regulatory approvals for walkie-...
Corporate Law : Standard pack sizes have been recommended for commonly used edible oils to reduce market inconsistencies and assist consumers in c...
Corporate Law : The Government has advised States and UTs not to impose fresh registration requirements on existing repairers merely because of re...
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 ...
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.
