Scdrc Court March 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.
The Assistant General Manager State Bank of India Retail Assets Centra ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Mridula Roy, Member The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-I in Complaint Case No. 164 of 2011 allowing the same on contest with cost against the Ops directing the Ops jointly and severally to adjust the outstanding loan amount in respect of Late Rajen Sen, i.e. deceased husband of the Complainant, with the Insurance Company and further directing the Ops to handover all papers relating to the said loan account and to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the Complainant and furthermore directing the Ops to pay the Complainant compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- only to her husband and mental agony and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- only within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. would accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Complainant till full realization. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the Ops have preferred the instant Appe...
Manilal Jamanadas Lodhiya Vs. Ajit L. Labhe
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 27/07/2001 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 70/1996 by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur by which the complaint has been dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that the two persons namely Vithabai Yergude and Maroti Khobragade had agreed to sell their respective land to him (complainant) on receiving part of consideration of the said lands. The agreements to sale were executed by them in favour of the complainant on 22/08/1983 and 01/12/1983 respectively. However, they committed breach of said agreement and did not execute the sale deed of the said land. Therefore, complainant approached to the opposite party (for short O.P.) Mr. Amit L. Labhe, Advocate to file suit for specific performance against the said two persons. He also paid Rs.4,500/- and Rs.6,000/- to the O.P. for said two cases. He had also signed two power (Vakil Patra) of the said A...
Himalaya Darpan Darjeeling and Another Vs. Manjula Subba, Darjeeling
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member The present Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.4.2013 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling in Complaint Case No. 2/D/2012, directing the Appellants/Ops to pay `35,000/- as compensation, ` 15.000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant/Respondent and also to deposit ` 5,000/- with the Consumer Welfare Fund, Darjeeling, plus interest @ 6% in case of default of payment. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are relevant to proper adjudication of the case are set out as follows: The Respondent/Complainant entered into a contract with the Appellants/Ops for publication of Antesty with a size 2?X15? of the daughter of the Complainant in the Appellants newspaper, Himalaya Darpan, for the period from 12.2.2013 to 16.2.2013 against a consideration of `13,500/-, but the same was not published on 14.2.2013 and 16.2.2013 in the said newspaper. However, on t...
Syed Abdul Haleem, Chennai Vs. Dwarkamai Builders, Rep by Its Propriet ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
(The complainant filed a complaint before this Commission against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.52,62,500/- towards the cost of completion of unfinished / uncompleted works by the opposite party with 12% interest from the date of abandoning of the site on 22.10.2011 till the date of repayment and to pay Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service, negligence and dereliction of duty, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and to pay costs. The complaint came before us for final hearing on 04.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, this commission made the following the orders. A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complaint filed under Section 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency of service e regarding the completion of building work entrusted with the opposite parties claiming for refund of Rs.52,62,500/...
The Branch Manager, Laxmi Ganapathy Automobiles Pvt Ltd. and Another V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2. The brief facts as seen from the complaint are that the complainant booked Mahindra Scorpio model SCORF MDI BS2 2WD TCO 7SF RHD by paying booking amount of Rs.10,000/- with the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and the complainant was assured that they would deliver the above model manufactured in the year 2010. On road price of the said vehicle was Rs.8,78,789/- while ex-show room price was mentioned as Rs.7,21,914/-. On 21.05.2010 the complainant obtained loan from Andhra bank and paid Rs.8,78,789/- through D.D. and the same was acknowledged by opposite party No.2 through receipt dated 21-05-2010. The opposite party No.2 delivered the vehicle through opposite party No.1 and issued tax invoice for an amount of Rs.7,21,914/-and Form No.22 without mentioning date, month and year of manufacturing of the vehicle...
Bikash Saha, Kolkata Vs. Subir Das, Kolkata and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member The present Appeal U/S 27 of the Consumer Protection Act has arisen from the Order No. 05 dt. 31.10.12 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas passed in connection with E.A. No. 50/2012 arising out of Complaint Case No. 219 of 2006, directing the OP No.2/Respondent No. 3, being the Developer, to re-allocate the owners allocation as per Agreement for Development executed in between the JDr and the landowners, and the landowners to vacate those flats which are not in their allocation and also to shift to their respective allocated portion to be made by the JDr. Briefly stated, the Respondent No. 1/Complainant filed a Complaint Case bearing No. 219 of 2006 before the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas, praying for order of execution and registration of Deed of Sale of a flat as per terms and conditions of the Agreement by and between the parties concerned. Thereupon, on hearing both the sides the Ld. District Forum below pa...
Umesh Narang Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
S.A. SiddiquiMember(Judicial): 1) This appeal has been filed by complainant appellant under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Hereinafter called Act) against order dated 02.07.2010 passed by Ld. DCDRF (East) Saini Enclave, New Delhi, in complaint case No.613/09 Umesh Narang Vs. LIC of India. 2) Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are noted below: i) Complainant appellant secured œLIC Jeevan Asha II Policy? No.121989082 dated 20.03.2003. The sum assured under the policy was Rs.3/- Lacs which cover major/minor surgical procedures. The complainant paid insurance premium regularly. ii) The complainant/appellant underwent a major surgery/ procedure for cardio-vascular system in Fortis Hospital and remained admitted there from 28.02.2008 to 05.03.2008. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.7,55,995/- for ICD implantation. After discharge from the hospital, the complainant appellant filed medical claim alongwith all necessary documents but the OP LIC repudiated th...
Dr. Syed Jabber Vs. Dwarkamai Builders, Rep by Its Proprietor, P. Soun ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
(The complainant filed a complaint before this Commission against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.16,45,590/- towards the cost of work to be completed by the opposite party with 12% interest from the date of abandoning of the site on 22.10.2011 till the date of repayment and to pay Rs.35,000/- being the monthly compensation for the delay in delivering of completed house and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service, negligence and dereliction of duty, to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and to pay costs. The complaint came before us for final hearing on 04.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, this commission made the following the orders:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complaint filed under Section 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency of service e regarding the completion of building...
Dr. Debasish Mukherjee.and Others Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh, Director, M.V. ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Mridula Roy, Member. No. 31/24.03.2014 The record is taken up for passing order in respect of M.A. 569 of 2013. The Complainants have filed the instant M.A. praying for passing an order for appointment of an Advocate Commission for the purpose of conducting local inspection of the case property stating, inter alia, that vide order No. 17 dt.07/09/2012 this Commission restrained the O.P. No. 1and2 from transferring, letting out, handing over and parting with possession of any portion of the vacant common area of the building in dispute to any third party as well as from making any unauthorized construction upon any part or portion of the disputed portion and, therefore, in order to avoid any future controversy it will be just and proper to appoint a Commission for local inspection so that the existing position of the building, number of flats, garages and parking spaces be ascertained. The O.Ps. have filed objection stating ,inter alia, that the complainants have purposefully preferred ...
The Manager, the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Salem Salai, Namakkal Vs. K.R ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
(The Respondents are the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.51/2007, dated 29.07.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 05.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st complainant having account in A/c.No.79670 with the opposite party received an intimation from the opposite party through phone on 18.4.2007 informing that one Ravi had withdrawn Rs.30,000/- from her account using cheque No.401560 and also received two other cheques for collection from Karur Visya Bank in which the dates are corrected and the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »