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 : The Court held that exclusion clause 5 could not justify repudiation of the boiler explosion claim. The insurer cannot rely on pos...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court applied the dominant-purpose principle and concluded that an established company buying specialized process-auto...
Company Law : The NCDRC ruled in favor of SBI Life, stating no insurance contract was formed since the insurer had not communicated its acceptan...
Corporate Law : The NCDRC ruled on a hotel's insurance claim, stating that a surveyor's report is valid unless challenged with credible evidence. ...
Corporate Law : The NCDRC has ruled that a surveyor's report is not binding. The court ordered United India Insurance to pay a ₹3.5 crore claim,...
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.
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.
