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 : 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...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the National Commission allowed the Revision Petition filed by the Complainant by making observation...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition have been filed by the Petitioner – LIC against Respondents under section 21...
In present facts of the case the National Commission while dismissing the Appeal observed that the Appellant cannot take ground which are entirely different from those relied upon while repudiating the claim at a subsequent stage.
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 the sale proceeds of the seized vehicle by the Respondent would be calculated at the depreciation rate @ 40% of the actual invoice value of the Motor Vehicle.
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.
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.
