Corporate Law : In the present case, entry by the culprits was by removal of roof sheet which cannot be done without use of force. Hence, it would...
Corporate Law : The Builder will have to refund the amount with interest to Homebuyer if possession of the flat is not given on time. Jaypee Build...
Corporate Law : The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ordered to refund of the full amount paid by five homebuyers in a ...
Corporate Law : Delhi State Consumer Commission dismisses National Insurance Co. appeal due to 54-day delay, citing lack of sufficient cause and j...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that the penalties imposed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC] are regulatory in nat...
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...
Corporate Law : In Rajeev Chaturvedi vs. Commissioner case, Rajasthan High Court rules Article 227 writ petition not applicable for NCDRC orders. ...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the National Commission observed that where the Final Surveyor’s Report credibility becomes doubtf...
Delhi State Consumer Commission dismisses National Insurance Co. appeal due to 54-day delay, citing lack of sufficient cause and judicial precedents on limitation.
Supreme Court held that the penalties imposed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC] are regulatory in nature and do not constitute “debt” under the IBC. Thus, penalty imposed by NCDRC needs to be complied with.
Compensation by its very nature, had to be just. For suffering, no part of which was the claimant-appellant’s own fault, she had been awarded a sum which could, at best, be described as ‘paltry’. In regard to the application of the Eggshell-Skull Rule, the impugned judgment was silent as to how this rule applied to the present case.
In Rajeev Chaturvedi vs. Commissioner case, Rajasthan High Court rules Article 227 writ petition not applicable for NCDRC orders. Detailed analysis provided.
In present facts of the case, the National Commission observed that where the Final Surveyor’s Report credibility becomes doubtful and at the same time no assessment have been made by the Insurance Company casts a severe shadow on their inaction indicating towards a deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company as well.
In present facts of the case, the National Commission allowed the Revision Petition filed by the Complainant by making observation that the Insurance Policy pertaining to theft would be applicable to whole India as provided in the Insurance Policy.
In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition have been filed by the Petitioner – LIC against Respondents under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 25.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujarat. The Complainants have also filed separate Consumer Complaint before the State Commission due to the pecuniary jurisdiction.
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.
