Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: companies amendment act 2002 Court: delhi state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc new delhi Page 1 of about 119 results (0.125 seconds)

Jul 17 2003 (TRI)

S.V.U.L. Projects Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and ...

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... documents/material on record. on the basis of documents/material on record it is not in dispute that the complainant company has availed of the services of the respondents for commercial purpose. the act stands amended as a result of consumer protection (amendment) act, 2002 which has come into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003. as a result of the ..... of substance because by operation of law the jurisdiction of a redressal agency established under the act in such like matters stands ousted w.e.f. 15.3.2003, i.e. the date on which the amendments effected by the consumer protection (amendment) act, 2002 came into force. 5. in view of the position explained above, the present complaint, ..... amendments, effected in the act, which have come into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003, in clause (ii)(d) of sub-section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 2004 (TRI)

D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd. Co. Vs. M.P. Dhingra

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... whether the district forum was competent to pass the impugned order, without the powers of judicial magistrate being conferred on it, after the amendment of the act as a result of consumer protection act (amendment) act, 2002. 6. with reference to the first contention of the petitioner it is apparent from the impugned order itself that notice of the application ..... review petition on 30.5.2003 which is alleged to be pending before the honble high court of delhi. on the dismissal of the company review petition no. 7/2002 by the division bench of the honble high court of delhi vide order dated 25.4.2003 the execution proceedings filed by the respondents ..... petition from s. nos. 140 to 172 the learned district forum directed the issuance of non-bailable warrant against the managing director and directors of the petitioner company. 4. aggrieved by the impugned orders the petitioner has filed the above revision petitions before this commission. 5. we have carefully perused the documents/material on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 2000 (TRI)

M/S. Asia Pacific Investment Trust Ltd. Vs. Amod Juneja and Others.

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding-up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the companies (amendment) act, 1960. (3) any suit or proceedings by or against the company which is pending in any court other than that in which the winding-up of the ..... company is proceeding may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be transferred to and disposed of by that court. (4) nothing .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1995 (TRI)

Anant Raj Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Lt ...

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... company on the said car has gone waste (emphasis added) our attention was also invited to the concluding part of the definition of the word consumer in which person who obtains such goods for any commercial purpose has been expressly excluded. it was further submitted by the learned counsel that the explanation added by the consumer protection amendment act ..... sale. the insertion of the explanation of the definition by the amended act of 1993 further shows the anxiety of the parliament to broaden the beneficent provisions of the act to apply to a larger number of consumers for whose protection the act has been enacted. 8. for these reasons we negative both ..... this order would dispose of two preliminary objections. brief material facts of the case are that m/s. anant raj agencies pvt. ltd., a company incorporated under the companies act, instituted the present complaint with the averments that the complainant purchased one tata sierra car manufactured by opposite party no. 1 through its dealer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1997 (TRI)

Aeroflot Soviet Airlines Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... 25.9.1990 and the present complaint was filed on 13.9.1993. the period of limitation prescribed under section 24a which was brought on the statute book by amending act of 1993 w.e.f. 18.6.1993 prescribed a period of two years and the complaint was barred by limitation, it was pointed out that as the ..... words, the bringing of the vehicle on the road without a valid and subsisting certificate of fitness was directly related to the occurrence of the loss and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim. 7. the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that there is a well understood distinction between two categories of ..... conditions therein lays down that claim shall be filed by the insured within 12 calender months from the date of disclaimer. in the facts of the present case, the insurance company denied its liability in december, 1992 and the present complaint was filed in september, 1993. we, therefore, find that the complaint is within limitation. 6. the claim .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2001 (TRI)

Mukesh Kumar Vs. Kateyani Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd and Another

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... even registered with the said authority and had been duping and cheating the subscribers by false representations. as such the appellant after issuing a legal notice to the respondent company approached the district forum with his complaint for the redressal of his grievances. 3. the respondent, controverted the above averments of the appellant in its reply written ..... forum was that he was a subscriber of chit no. k-4/8 for rs. 1,20,000/- (rupees one lakh twenty thousand only), floated by the respondent company and had been paying the instalments of rs. 3,000/- each, every month regularly from 15.11.1990 upto 9.3.1992, for which the respondent had issued ..... cpj 41 (sc), where in their lordships have held : admittedly, no period of limitation had been prescribed in the act before insertion of section 24-a vide amendment made w.e.f. 18th june, 1993. section 24-a of the act, for the first time, prescribed that the district forum, the state commission or the national commission shall not admit a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2009 (TRI)

Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. Vs. Devesh JaIn (Dr.)

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... carry on business of insurance unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the insurance recovery and development authority. further, hiring of services of the insurance company by taking insurance policy by complainants who are carrying on commercial activities cannot be held to be a commercial purpose. the policy is taken for reimbursement ..... the oxford dictionary means viewed as a matter of profit and loss. the word purpose means object which is in view or for which is made ; aim amend . the word commercial purposes would, therefore, cover an undertaking the object of which is to make a profit out of the undertakings. according to oxford dictionary ..... raised by the appellant was that the respondent did not fall within the definition of consumer as defined by section 2(d)(i) of consumer protection act, 1986 as he had purchased the chair for commercial purpose. there is distinction between commercial activities and commercial purpose. if any professional engaged in the business .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1997 (TRI)

Far Eastern Carriers Vs. Rikab Dass JaIn and Sons

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... .10.93. the question is whether the period of limitation is to be taken as two years as laid down in section 24a of the consumer protection act which was inserted by the ammending act of 1993 w.e.f. 18.6.93. in several cases, this question has been examined and it has been consistently held by this commission that where ..... no dispute that prior to the insertion of section 24a the normal period of limitation was taken to be three years. reference in this connection may be made to new india assurance company v. smt. shanti misra, air 1976 sc 237 in which the ..... the cause of action accrued prior to the enactment of section 24 a , the period of limitation which was available prior to the amendment would apply. there can be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2004 (TRI)

Jet Airways India (P.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Dipak Bhattacharya

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... of the carriage which is non-international. these regulations are known as jet airways non-international carriage (passenger and baggage) regulations, 1992. the liability of the company for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other body injury suffered by a passenger or by his registered baggage during ..... as that the respondent travelled from bangalore to chennai and when he could not get his two bags at chennai he searched for the staff of the appellant company at chennai airport for lodging the report of loss of baggage but none was available and since he is residing at delhi he straingtaway came to delhi ..... provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 and the rules contained the second schedule of carriage by air act, 1972 with certain exceptions, adaptations, modifications, etc. as notified in the govt. of india, ministry of civil aviation notification and as amended from time-to-time. 3. though this clause itself does not entitle a person whose baggage is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2002 (TRI)

R.P. Garg Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

..... by the appellant, under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the act) is directed against order dated 18.6.2002, passed by district forum no. iii, janakpuri, new delhi in complaint case no. 2066/2000 entitled shri r.p. garg v. the new india assurance company limited. 2. the facts, relevant for the disposal of the ..... present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant, shri r.p. garg, had filed a complaint under section 12 of the act ..... extent of rs. 20,05,905.95. it is also not in dispute that on receipt of the above claim from the end of the appellant, the respondent insurance company deputed one shri sanjeev nijhawan to further investigate the matter, who noticed that the bill for rs. 38,000/- towards denting given by m/s. arjun raja denters, .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //