Advanced Search Results

Federal Bank Ltd. vs Peeyar Exporters

Court : Kerala

Commission), against which an appeal was provided before the Apex Court in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was in force then. It was argued by the learned counsel that although the proposition laid down … the learned counsel for the first respondent.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contendedthat in the light of Sections 34 and 35 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 … Tribunal under Section 17 or the Court of District Judge under Section 17A.](4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in fullwithin the

Kirandevi Bansal Vs. D.G.M., Small Industries Development Bank of Indi ...

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Banking

Acts : Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4), 13(13), 17, 17(2) and 17A; Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004 - Sections 13(3A); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 69 and 69A; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 529(1) and 529A; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 17(1); Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 13(2); Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rule 3A; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rules 7(3) and 9; Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : AIR2009Guj100

: 2002 6 SCC 33 : AIR 2002 SC 2487 while considering the scope of Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whether or not the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can grant time to the respondent beyond a total … an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or the Court of District Judge under Section 17A.(4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in Sub-section (2),

Beaulah Grace Albert vs Rose Jose

Court : Kerala

the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in CC No.81/2018, which is a complaint submitted under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1986”) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur. The first and … Commission feels that in the interest of justice, the transfer is necessary, the same can be entertained under Section 17A of Act, 1986 and under section 48 of Act,2019. The State Commission has got the power to transfer

M/S. Mukherji Builders and Construction Corporation Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Ann ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Raisa Beegum vs the District Consumer Redressal Forum

Court : Kerala

pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam to the Consumer Disputes RedressalForum, Kottayam. Section 17A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 specifically confers power on the State Commission on its own motion, or on application to transfer cases from

Justice Choudhary S.N. Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Chief ...

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : ConsumerCivil

Acts : Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 4(2), 5(2), 10(3), 13(1), 13(4), 14(3), 15, 16, 16(2) 19, 20, 20(2), 22, 30 and 30(1); High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 - Sections 17A; High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 1976; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Jharkhand High Court Judges' (Medical Facilities) Reimbursement Rules, 2004 - Sections 3; Bihar Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 - Rules 6 and 11

Reported in : [2005(4)JCR25(Jhr)]

the notification relating to the conditions of service. It was virtually a re-employment unconditionally.5. Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down the provision for composition of State Commission and Section 20 lays down the provisions relating to

M/S. Sri Ananda Ice Factory Vs. the Assistant Divisional Engineer Elec ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Chandramohan S/O Chandranarayan Mahehshwari and anr. Vs. Sarojbai Subh ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Act, 1946 - Sections 2, 6, 7 and 9; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 17, 17A(1) and 20(3); Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 13(4), 13(5), 13(6), 21 and 22; Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Rule 41; Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 - Rule 22; Tamilnadu Consumer Protection Rules; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 9, Rule 8; Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949

Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR186; 2005(3)MhLj627

the question that arose before the Apex Court was in regard to the jurisdiction of National Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain and decide the rival complaints where several persons claim the same relief simultaneously disputing each other's … the Act and the Rent Control Order which have a bearing on the issue need to be stated.4. Section 2 of the Act vests the State Government with power to regulate the letting and sub-letting of any

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division and Others Vs. ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Acts : Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 22A, 13(4), 30A; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908; Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 - Regulation 26(1); Amendment of the Act - Sections 17A, (B)

of Rs.15,00,000/-. The complainants did not take necessary steps to remove objection and to complete procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission, Maharashtra issued notice to the opposite parties/appellants herein on 10.02.2004. On 9.9.2004, the State Commission … the earlier decision in Jyotsana case. Further the effect of the amendment to the Act in 2003 whereby Section 22A was introduced has the effect of conferment of power of restoration on the National Commission, but not