Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... petition no.2100 of 2008 (puda vs. inderjit bansal), revision petition no.2101 of 2008 (puda vs. sahib chand and anr.) and revision petition no.2102 of 2008 (puda vs. rajiv makkar and anr.) have been filed under section 21 (b) of the consumer protection act, 1986 (short, act) against the orders dated 7.3.2008 passed by state consumer disputes ..... petition no.2100 of 2008 (puda vs. inderjit bansal), revision petition no.2101 of 2008 (puda vs. sahib chand and anr.) and revision petition no.2102 of 2008 (puda vs. rajiv makkar and anr.) are similar in facts. the particulars are given below :- in rp no. 2100 of 2008 (appeal no. 187 of 2005/ (pb)/ rbt/844/ 2007) puda vs. inderjit ..... till amenities are provided and site plan is sanctioned. in rp no. 2102 of 2008 (appeal no. 189 of 2005/(pb)/rbt/845 of 2008) puda vs. rajiv makkar and anr., in which shri rajiv makkar had purchased a residential plot no. 10 of 400 sq. yds. from puda for rs.15,00,000/-. the facts of this case are also almost .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... defects in the seeds as well as deficiency of service in supplying of the seeds. 14. learned counsel for respondents in support of their contentions relied upon following judgments; (i) national seeds corpn. vs. p. v. krishna reddy 2009 (ctj) 522; (ii) d. j. damani and sons vs. deepak madanlal agarwal and anr. ii (2013) cpj 102(nc); (iii) maya seeds ..... development corpn. vs. sandhu 2005 cpj 13(sc); (iv) national seeds corporation vs. madhusudhan reddy [2012 (1) scale 367]; (v) m/s maharshtra hybrid seeds company ltd. vs. alavalapati chandra reddy reported in iii (1989) cpj 8 (sc) and (vi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... as a commercial document and the transaction commercial purpose. in s. kumars com ltd. v. amarendra raiguru, reported in ii (2008) cpj 177 (nc), the national commission held that: if a person enters into a contractual agreement for supply of certain goods for the purpose of rendering service as a franchisee to others after receiving ..... c.c. 28/2008 and batch amounts were directed to be returned. on an appeal this commission confirmed the order, against which was a revision was preferred. the national commission confirmed the same in r.p. 2809/2010 by order dated 25.10.2010. it is not disputed before us that the petitioner had failed to provide ..... availed the services provided by opposite parties 1 and 2. a person who availed services for his livelihood cannot be considered as commercial purpose. the complainant started rajiv internet centre not to generate profits but for their livelihood. therefore, it is not a commercial purpose and the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Rekha Gupta, Member The revision petition No. 2330 of 2012 is filed against the impugned order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ( the State Commission) in appeal no. 1505 of 2009 in original complaint case no. 106 of 2011 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faizabad (the District Forum). The facts of the case as per the petitioner was as follows: The deceased Devendra Kumar Yadav was the son of petitioner/complainant no. 1, husband of petitioner no. 2 and father of petitioner no. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The son of the petitioner/complainant no.1 and husband of petitioner/ complainant no. 2 and father of petitioner/ complainant no.3, Late Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav was allegedly poisoned on the night of 22.02.2001 by Daya Shankar son of Rajaram, Rama Kant son of Daya Shanaker, Phool Chandra son of Babloo, Janaki Daughter of Phool Chandra and Vidhan son of Ram Bahal which was revealed in ...
Tag this Judgment!