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 National Commission while relying upon the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017 observed that there will be zero liability of a customer where the unauthorized transaction occurs in events involving contributory negligence on the part of the Bank and have accordingly allowed the Petition.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, in case of any ambiguity, the clauses must be read in favour of consumer. The hyper technicalities cannot create obstacles for the Consumer.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that discontinuance of housing scheme would not disentitle the right of the Consumer to make claim on the project which was allotted initially.
In present facts of the case, it was held that the power of National Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence must be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
In present facts of the case, it was held that the Consumer was entitled to get his claim covered under the sub clause of the Insurance Policy which provides him a higher benefit.
Imagine the excitement of buying your dream home, eagerly waiting for its completion and possession, only to face delay after delay, broken promises, and endless frustrations. In such cases, consumers may file a complaint seeking relief from the concerned authorities.
Opposite Party to pay a compensation of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) to the Complainant for wrong cutting the her hair.
Rajiv Singhal Vs Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Anr (NCDRC Delhi) Buying a property is often the biggest investment that most people make in their lives. It is an exciting time filled with the promise of a better future but also a time fraught with danger. Unfortunately, for many buyers, buying a property is not […]
Whether bank may exercise and invoke banker’s Rights of Lien as per Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 to settle dues from deceased person in case deceased person has taken a loan?
Whether improper hair cut & consequent humiliation/embarrassment is deficiency in service for compensation under Consumer Protection Laws
