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.
Leela Gaur Vs. Corporation Bank
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against an order dated 29/10/2013 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune dismissing the Consumer Complaint No.184 of 2012. Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are quite disturbing. [2] The Appellant/original Complainant “ Smt. Leela Ushakant Gaur, is a daughter of one Smt. Vimal Randive. Appellant and Smt. Vimal Randive held two lockers bearing Nos.188 and 191 in the safe deposit vault of the Respondent Bank at its Pune Branch. The Appellant as well as her mother were entitled to operate the lockers. In the year 1992, Appellants mother went to United States of America where the Appellants sister was residing. There was some bitterness between the family and the Appellant was not in touch with her mother. Appellants mother had allegedly lost the keys of the lockers. Appellant approached the Respondent Bank to permit her to operate the lockers since the lockers were operable by ei...
Bhausaheb Vishram Kahandal and Others Vs. Opal Farm Agro Chemicals Pvt ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] All these appeals filed by the Appellants/original Complainants take an exception to a common order dated 24/01/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in Consumer Complaints Nos.624 of 2009 to 641 of 2009. Since all these appeals involve identical facts and common question of law, all these appeals are clubbed together and are disposed of by this common order. [2] Facts leading to these appeals can be summarized as under:- "The Appellants/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants for the sake of brevity) purchased an organic manure - Hortimeal-5:10:5 and Hortimeal-5:10:0 from the manufacturer “ M/s. Opal Farm Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent/original Opponent No.1; and the dealer “ M/s. Pandit Agro Services, Medha Krishi Seva Kendra and Janori Vividh Karyakari Seva Santha. 300 bags of said organic manure was directly purchased from the manufacturer viz. the Respondent/original Oppo...
M/S. Simla Automobiles Private Limited and Another Vs. Rakesh Kumar an ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, i.e. F.A. No.281/2013, titled M/s. Simla Automobiles Private Limited versus Rakesh Kumar and Another and F.A. No.325/2013, titled Mahindra and Mahindra Limited versus Rakesh Kumar and Another, as both the appeals are directed against the same order, viz., order dated 06.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, passed in Consumer Complaint No.248/2012, filed by respondent/complainant-Rakesh Kumar against the appellants. 2. On 27.09.2012, respondent/complainant- Rakesh Kumar filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants, M/s. Simla Automobiles Private Limited and M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, alleging that he had purchased Mahindra Xylo E-6 vehicle on 05.02.2010 for a consideration of Rs.7,55,000/- with extended warranty, for which an additional amount of Rs.10,999/- was paid. Vehicle was state...
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman Office ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 are the revisions petitioners. The revision is filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2013 of the District Forum passed in I.A.No.364 of 2013. 2. The first respondent filed complaint and sought for relief for payment of amount on maturity Rs.4,71,408/- covered under deposit receipts and also she claimed interest and compensation. Her case is that she invested an amount of Rs.3,05,000/- with the petitioners and the petitioners issued Nirman Bonds and after the date of maturity, she surrendered the deposit receipts viz., Nirman Bonds on 12.4.2012. She refused to reinvest the amount with the petitioners and she had received notice dated 7.9.2012 which was issued on behalf of Smt T.Pavani who claimed to have the deposit receipts with her pledged by the first respondent as security for payment of loan a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-. 3. The petitioner had filed petition I.A.No.364 of 2013 seeking permission to implead t...
Yadav Govind Dahatonde Vs. Shashikant V. Pacharne and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Shri.Yadav Govind Dahatonde resident of village Chanda, Tq.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar appellant herein/original complainant challenges in this appeal dismissal of complaint case No.486/2006 by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar on 6.7.2007. 2. The facts in nutshell are as under. Complainant Shri.Yadav Dahatonde was having complaint about pains in eyes and some other complaints about vision. Therefore, on 6.9.2005 he approached to opponent No.1 Dr.Shashikant Pacharane at Ahmednagar. Opponent No.1 advised complainant that in the right eye of complainant there is cataract therefore complainant was to undergo cataract surgery. At that time, there was no any sign of cataract in the left eye of complainant but in fact the left eye of the complainant was operated for cataract surgery on 22.9.2005. Even after said surgery there was swelling in the eye of complainant and there was infection. Therefore complainant again approached to opponent No.1 on 29.9.2005 but without t...
Faruqi Multi Speciality Hospital Vs. the A.P. Transco, Charminar Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Oral Order: (Gopala Krishna Tamada, President) 1) This CD has a chequered history. It may not be necessary for us to go into the various facts which led to filing of this CD and the Writ Petitions in the High Court of A.P. etc. 2) The simple point is that, the Electricity Authorities i.e., the Opposite Party herein issued a provisional assessment order estimating the value at Rs. 10,76,175/- in respect of Service Connection bearing No. X2-4641/II and also Rs. 9,72,328/- in respect of Service Connection bearing No. X2-4630/II situated at D.No. 23-1-986/1, Moghalpura, Hyderabad, the same is challenged by the complainant by filing the present complaint u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act before this Commission. The prayer in the said CD is as under : œTherefore, it is prayed that the Honble Fourm may be pleased to declare the action of the Opposite Party in provisionally estimating the value of energy pilferaged at Rs. 10,76,175/- in respect of the Service Connection bearing No. X...
The Supdt. of Post Vs. Suvendu Das
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Order No.4 Dt. 04.03.14 Ld. Advocates appearing for both the Appellant and the Respondent having been heard on 24.02.14 on the petition for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal under No. FA/1242/13, record is put up for passing order.What revealed from the petition for condonation of delay is as follows : The impugned order being passed on 18.04.12, the Appellant sought for the opinion of the higher authority on 14.08.2013 and such opinion was obtained on 23.08.2013. Thereafter the Ministry of Law and Justice being approached vide letter dated 28.08.2013, gave their opinion on 06.09.2013. On 26.09.2013 the Appellant No.1 requested the Asst. Director of Postal Services (SB) , COWB, Circle Kolkata, 700 012 for engagement of Additional Standing Govt. Counsel. Accordingly, the Additional Standing Govt. Counsel was appointed by the Ministry of Law on 28.10.2013. The engagement letter was issued. The appeal was prepared on 15.11.13 and then filed on 20.11.2013. The Appellants statem...
Punjab State Electricity Board, Through Its Chai Rman and Another Vs. ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as œthe Ops?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur(hereinafter referred as œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.383 dated 18.9.2008 vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants(hereinafter referred as the complainants) was allowed with direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 18,000/- per acre for 106 kanals 2 marlas land of the complainants alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 21.4.2008 till realization. 2. Complainants filed this complaint through his attorney Surjit Singh as they are residents of Canada. It was alleged that complainant No. 1 owns 74 Kanals 01 Marlas land comprised in Khasra No. 21 situated in the area of Village JiwanArain, Tehsil Jalalabad, Hadba...
M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Pulakesh Banerjee, ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Decision with reasons. Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist has submitted that the matter of huge delay in making the complaint case before the said Ld. District Forum was allowed without giving any scope to it and the same was allowed not provisionally also. This is a special enactment in which extension of time is given of two years which is peremptory in nature. There has been no continuing cause giving rise to the extension of time beyond the statutory period. The same required hearing in the presence of the OP, with opportunity to file objection. She has referred to Limitation Act by S.P. Sen Gupta, Ninth Edition, Kamal Law House, Kolkata, Page 125, Para 32, where it was stated citing a decision that when an appeal, prima facie, is admitted ex parte under Section 5, it is open to the Respondent to urge at the hearing that there is no sufficient ground for enlarging time. Further, there is wrongness in the order by admitting the case at first and thereafter allowing the petition for co...
Devendar Kumar Gogia and Others Vs. Vasudeva Constructions, Rep. by It ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. These appeals F.A.No.29, 31 and 51 of 2012 are filed by the unsuccessful complainants. The appeals arise from the orders passed by the District Forum in complaints wherein the opposite parties to the case and the question decided has been the same and as such they are being disposed of by a common order. The parties are referred to as they arrayed in the complaint. F.A.No.29 of 2012 is taken as the lead case. 2. The brief facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the along with his father Sri Suraj Prakash Gogia, purchased an undivided and unspecified share of 35 sq.yds out of extent of 1190 sq.yds together with residential flat No.203 with plinth area 1025 sft in the 1st floor, constructed upto lintel level of Neelima Aashirwad Towers in Narasimha Nagar, near NSTL gate, Butchirajupalem village, Visakhapatnam in Sy.No.31/A/2 and Plot No.76 and 77 from the Opposite parties and the original Landlord, Bunga Daniel Babu, for a valid co...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »