Scdrc Court January 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Quitto Exim Pvt. Ltd. Represented by B.L ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.CC 42 of 2009 allowing the case and directing the OP to make payment of the balance amount with usual interest except the sum deposited towards TDS and a sum of Rs.2,76,377.49 already paid by pay order and receipt by the complainant on 17/10/08, if entire fixed amount is not attached with Income Tax Department as against complainant company, namely, Quitto Exim Pvt. Ltd. The OP was further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, in default interest will accrue @ 9% p.a. till realisation. The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that the complainant company had a fixed deposit of Rs.3,48,957.49 for the period of one year on 15/02/06. On 26/07/06 the complainant company approached the Bank for premature withdrawal. The B...
Poornima Sharma Vs. Sushma Buildtech Limited
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Party, which is a Builder, in its brochure, had given details of technical specifications of the project, launched by it, in Sushma Urban Views?, located at Gazipur, NAC, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali, Punjab. The complainant with a view to purchase a residential apartment/flat, in the above mentioned project of the Opposite Party, visited its office, at Chandigarh. She was taken to the site, by an official of the Opposite Party, and was shown sample flat that had best used material. The complainant was told that the upcoming residential complex would consist of different towers, equipped with all the basic amenities, and same kind of infrastructure. The complainant was further informed that each tower would have best interiors and wood, including sanitary fittings of quality material, as used in the sample flat, shown to her. The said Official of the Opposite Party also assured the ...
Rajesh Gupta Vs. Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a Chartered Accountant by profession, who is doing his own practice. The Opposite Parties, are promoters and developers of Techno Knowledge Park project, for Fashion Technology, situated at Sector 90, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, under the name-Design and Insignia of Industrial Knowledge (Fashion Technology) Park. In the month of April 2010, the Opposite Parties floated a small investor scheme, regarding the allotment of design studios, in the aforesaid project. In the advertisement, the Opposite Parties stated that the project would operate from 01.09.2010. The complainant was allured by such advertisement, and, submitted an application dated 09.05.2010, and Rs.1 lac, through cheque no.572613 dated 09.05.2010, drawn on UCO Bank, New Delhi, to the Opposite Parties, for buying a design studio, in their project, for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by way of self employment. The Opposit...
T. Nagaiah Vs. M/S. JaIn Irrigation System (P) Ltd., Through Its Chief ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. This is a complaint filed u/s 17 of consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of `59,08,000/- towards loss of crop and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages together with costs of Rs.25,000/-. 2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that the complainant, a progressive farmer purchased drip irrigation system manufactured by the opposite party No.1 through its distributor, the opposite party No.2 in the year 1998 for irrigation of Annato Dye Crop over an extent of 72.00 acres paid Rs.8, 03,342.70 towards the consideration of the drip system contributed by the complainant and partly by the A.P. State Government. The complainant, his family members and other farmers had installed the drip irrigation system for the following crops. a)Under Annato Crop72 acresb)Under Pomegranate Crop12 acresc)Papaya/ Medicinal Plants Crop13 acresTotal97 acres3. The complaint relates to drip system purchased t...
Shivdev Singh Vs. Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), and directed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, (now respondents), jointly and severally, as under:- œIn view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has rightly proved her case. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed. The OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to pay, jointly and severally, Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The OPs No.1 and 2 shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of...
Muthoot Finance Limited Vs. Sanjiv Kumar
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.06.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:- œIn view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite party is directed :- i) to recalculate the amount by treating the market rate of gold as applicable on 9.6.2011 (date of public auction); ii) to refund the balance amount after adjusting Rs.36,473/- from the amount arrived at Sr.No.(i) above. iii) to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iv) to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the a...
Silver City Construction Limited and Another Vs. Jaswant Dhaliwal
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant (respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (appellants), as under:- œ15. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Parties are directed to:- [a] To refund Rs.2940/- realized from the Complainant towards water and sewerage charges along with Rs.1,00,000/- on account of non-occupancy charges; [b] To pay Rs.25,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cos...
Jasjit B. Atwal and Another Parsvnath Developers Limited, Through Its ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, had widely advertised their project of a township, in the name and style of œParsvnath Prideasia?, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, envisaging sale of residential units, to be developed, and constructed by them, on the land of Opposite Party No.3. The complainants, applied for the allotment of a residential unit, in Category D, Block No.6, measuring 1700 square feet super area, vide application form, now marked as Annexure C-1. An amount of Rs.5,07,750/- (infact Rs.6,07,750/-, as is evident from the record), as earnest money, was also paid by the complainants, towards the said unit. The application of the complainants was acknowledged and they were allotted flat No.D6-204, SECOND FLOOR, in Parsvnath Prideasia, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, vide allotment letter dated 29.07.2008/19/08/2008, copy whereof is at page 36 of the file. The complain...
Fore School of Management Vs. V.K. Khanna
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), Presiden: 1. This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 06.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, the Opposite Party (now the Revision Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte; the order dated 09.10.2013, vide which the application dated 20.09.2013, filed by it, for setting aside the exparte order dated 06.09.2013, aforesaid, was dismissed, holding that it (District Forum), was not vested with the power to review/recall its own order; and the order dated 12.11.2013, vide which it (District Forum), allowed the application for condonation of delay of 522 days, moved by the complainant/respondent, in filing the complaint. 2. The facts, in brief, of the Consumer Complaint bearing No.338 of 2013, are that in response to the advertisements, in various newspapers, as also the Brochure, Mr. Rahat Khanna son of the complainant, took admission ...
Munni Devi Vs. State Bank of India and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant. 2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the husband of the complainant, namely, Late Sh. Binod Kumar Balmiki availed of loan facility from Opposite Party No.1, and, as such, loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned vide letter dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure C-1) for meeting the expenses in respect of his daughters marriage. It was stated that the said loan was to be repaid in 60 EMIs of Rs.7,177/- each w.e.f. 21.11.2012. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 deducted a sum of Rs.3,604/- as premium on 31.10.2012, towards Life Insurance Policy, in the name of the husband of the complainant, to be provided by Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that the husband of the complainant expired on 27.11...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »