Search Results for "State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission"

297 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 297 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Allows Execution Appeals Against Builder for Non-Compliance of Consent Order. Builder Failed to Deliver Possession and Pay Compensation as Per Settlement, Leading to Remand for Fresh Consideration.

The present appeals arise out of two execution applications filed by the complainants, Shivani Aggarwal and Sunita Jain, against the builder, Pranav A...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Complainant not required to prove service obtained for self-employment livelihood unless appellant proves commercial purpose.

Consumer Protection - Maintainability of Complaint - Definition of Consumer - Service obtained for Commercial Purpose - Onus of Proof - Burden of Proo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Bail to Developer in Consumer Execution Proceedings for Non-Compliance of Refund Order. Held that Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is penal in nature and bail should be granted liberally unless there is likelihood of abscondence or tampering with evidence.

The petitioner, Suhas Ratnakar Morey, a developer, was involved in a consumer dispute with the respondent, Dhanraj Tulshiram Khaparde, who had paid Rs...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Commission Order Directing Builder to Refund Amount with Interest in Flat Possession Delay Case. Builder's Appeal Dismissed as Subsequent Purchaser Entitled to Interest from Deposit Dates Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Despite Force Majeure Claims.

The dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by the purchaser against the builder for delayed possession of a residential flat. The original allo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Seeking Reappointment of District Forum Presidents Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 10(2) of the Act Prescribes a Single Term of Five Years or Until Age 65, Barring Reappointment.

The judgment addresses a common question arising in multiple writ petitions: whether the President of a District Forum constituted under Section 10 of...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to Section 27(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Summary Trial for Non-Compliance Upheld. Section 27(3) is a complete code and does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, Shri A. G. Sawant, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Against MSEDCL Over Tariff Categorization of LPG Bottling Plant as Industrial Activity. LPG Bottling Plant Held to Be Manufacturing Activity Entitling Petitioner to HT I Industrial Tariff Under MERC Tariff Order.

The Petitioner, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, challenged the categorization of its LPG Gas Bottling Plant at Sangli under the HT II Co...