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.
Chief Manager, M/S. Fine India Company Private Limited and Another Vs. ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.01.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.133/2012, whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been allowed. 2. The appellants/OPs have preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 14.01.2013, passed by the District Forum and have also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Shri Dron Tamrakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/OPs prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the basis of grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellants/OPs and he seeks an opportunity to argue the matter on merits. He placed reliance on N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222; E.I.C.M. Exports Ltd. v. South Indian Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd. and Another [2011] 7 RCR (Civ) 32/[2009] 14 SCC 412 / [2009]...
Ardhendu Chakraborty, Purba Medinipur and Others Vs. the Chairman and ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
J. Bag, ld. Member The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 08.06.12 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipore, in Consumer Case No.46 of 2009 whereby, the complaint was dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost. The complaint, in brief, was as follows: The Complainants, 8 in number, being consumers under the OPs could not cultivate Boro paddy in their lands owing to negligence on the part of the OPs, who supplied electricity at low voltage . The Complainants sought for exemption from payment of energy charges for the period from January to April 2009 on the ground that each of the Complainants used to cultivate their respective lands by lifting water by shallow pump after taking electric service connection from the OP No.3. In the month of January 2009 each of the Complainant sowed Boro Crop in their respective land, but owing to supply of electricity at low voltage by OP No.3 they could not run their shallow pumps properl...
Living Room Lifestyles Private Limited Vs. theresa Julian
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal is filed by the Opposite Party in C.C. No. 18/2012 and is directed against order dated 19/11/2013 of the North Goa District Forum, by which the complaint filed by the Complainant has been allowed. 2. Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal and for that the parties to this appeal are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint. 3. The Complainant placed a customized order on 12/11/2010 for the supply of an Attessa bed without storage in Bavarian Beech laminate for a price of Rs.25,000/-, and an Attessa side table in Bavarian Beech laminate for Rs.7,200/- as per showroom design. The order was to be supplied within 15 “ 20 days. According to the Complainant, she had placed the said order as the Complainant had earlier purchased from the OP, a wardrobe and a show case which were to match with the said Attessa bed and the Attessa side table. 4. There is no dispute that the Complai...
The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri Vs. Sudip Dutta, Ja ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Mridula Roy, Member. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2012 passed by Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri D. F. Case No. 7/2012 allowimg the same on contest with cost of Rs.5000/- against the Opposite Party directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the Complainant and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for causing delay, harassment and mental agony of the complainant within one month from the date of passing the order failing which an interest @ 10% p.a. would be accrued on entire sum except the amount of cost. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the Opposite Party has preferred the instant appeal. The Complanants case, in brief, is that he, a holder of Savings Bank Account being No.30020321766 with the State Bank of India, Town Branch, Jalpaiguri, along with A.T.M. facility, on 15.01.2010 went to A.T.M. Counter of S.B.I., Kadamtala to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,000/...
M/S. Dynamic Construction Represented by Its Proprietor, Kolkata Vs. D ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Mridula Roy, Member The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 19.7.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF, South 24 Parganas, in C.C. Case no. 18 of 2010 allowing the same in part on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/- directing the OP to handover the Completion Certificate within one month from the date of order failing which the Complainants were at liberty to put decree into execution in accordance with the law and to get an interest @ 10% p.a. on the sum of cost for the default period. Being aggrieved by that order the OP has preferred the instant Appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the deed of conveyance has been registered in respect of the flats in question in favour of the respective complainants and since the deed of conveyance is the sole and exclusive document to show the ownership there is no need for Completion Certificate to obtain basic amenities like water supply connection etc. The case of the Complainants, in brief, is that they are the flat-owners of a bui...
Manager, S.B.i. Life Insurance Co. Ltd., South Bazar, Kannur, Represen ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
A. Radha : Member This appeal is preferred by the 1st opposite party in C.C.No.90/2012 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The respondents are the complainant and 2nd opposite party. The Forum Below directed the 1st opposite party to refund Rs.15,887/- along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings. 2. The complainant took a policy from the 1st opposite party induced by the 2nd opposite party by remitting Rs.25,000/-. It was not a single premium policy and after remitting the amount the complainant realised that he had to pay equal premium of Rs.25,000/- each for 3 years and extended to 5 years, accordingly paid Rs.1,25,278/- within 5 years. On 14/02/2012 the opposite party closed the policy unilaterally without informing the complainant and issued a cheque for Rs.1,02,687/-. The complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The act of the opposite party caused loss to the complainant for an amount of Rs.65,48...
Nisith Chakraborty and Another Vs. M/S. Dras Construction, Represented ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Mridula Roy, Member. The instant appeal is directed against the order being No.02 dated 03.10.2012 passed by Ld District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-1 in case number C.C.12/411 rejecting the same giving liberty to agitate the issue before appropriate forum on self same cause of action holding that the subject-matter of the case is not within the purview of the C. P. Act, 1986. Being aggrieved by that order the complainant has preferred the instant appeal. Complainants case, in brief is that their father was a tenant under the land owners in respect of a portion of the premises No.121, Harish Mukherjee Road,Kolkata-700026, P.S. Bhawanipore. However, the land owners decided to erect a multistoried building in the said premises and entered into two Agreements for Development with the Opposite parties on 08.07.2003 and 17.07.2003 and asked the said tenant to vacate the rented portion on assurance that after completion of the construction project he would get an accommod...
Managing Director Sahkari Samiti, Haridwar Vs. Ratan Singh
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 282 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to issue the receipt to the complainant for a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by him and to return his pass-book to him, after making the entry of the said deposit in it, within a month from the date of the order. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Sh. Ratan Singh“ complainant has alleged that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with Sahkari Samiti, Aithal Bujurg, Baharabad Khadar, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar “ opposite party, but the opposite party did not issue any receipt to him. The complainant has also alleged that the pass-book is also with the opposite party. According to the complainant, he sent registered notice to the opposite party in this regard, but to no avail. This led the co...
M/S. Hdfc Ltd. MerlIn Estates, Kolkata Vs. Chandra Pal and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in CC 327 of 2013 allowing the complaint ex parte with cost of Rs.5,000/- against the OP. The OP was directed to return the document, that is, the original deed of conveyance, original receipt issued by the developer and all other relevant documents and also release of certificate in terms of prayer A of the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh within 15 days failing which the amounts will carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till realisation. The OP was also directed to pay the punitive damage to the tune of Rs.2 lakh out of which a sum of Rs.25,000/- be given to the Complainant and the rest amount be deposited with the SCWF within 15 days from the date of order.The case of the Respondents/Complainants, in short, is that they obtained loan which was completely liquidated, but the OP Bank did not return the documents ...
Citizen Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The complainant is a Co-operative Bank having its Central Administrative Office at Helena 57, Mount Carmel Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050. The complainant is the holder of a Bankers Indemnity Insurance Policy No.46 111 4000158 (hereinafter called œthe said policy?) issued by the opponent/Insurance Company. Said policy was valid for a period from 01/07/1990 to 30/06/1991 and it covered various risks including inter alia, loss of money securities on account of any dishonest or criminal act of the complainants employees. 2. As per complainant on 21/03/1990 one Mr.Patrick Fernandes opened a current account with the Byculla Branch of the complainants Bank in the name of M/s.Sahil Body Shop. From time to time, said Mr.Patrick Fernandes was allowed to withdraw sums in excess of available funds from the aforesaid account in connivance and collusion with one Mr.Joseph Rodrigues, who was Manager of said Branch at that time. On or about 12/09...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »