Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Cci Chambers Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd vs Development Credit Bank Ltd on 29 August, 2003

Khem Singh Shankhla vs H. D. F. .C. Bank Ltd. & Ors on 22 August, 2008

In CCI Chambers Cooperative Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the fora under the Act is specifically empowered to follow such procedure which will not require more than or delay the proceeding. A Forum under the Act is entitled, and would be justified in evolving a procedure of its own and 3 also by effectively controlling the proceedings so as to do away with the need of a detailed and complicated trial and arrive at a just decision of the case by resorting to the principles of natural justice and following the procedure consistent with the principles thereof, also making use of such of the powers of Civil Court as are conferred on it. It has further been observed that mere complication either of facts or of law cannot be a ground for the denial of hearing by a Forum under the Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank Of India on 21 January, 2022

11. Further, it is also well settled legal position1 that requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the 1 CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 7 questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 37 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Punj Lloyd Ltd vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd on 11 December, 2008

9. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-appellant submitted, relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of CCI Chambers Coop. HSG. Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. [(2003) 7 SCC 233], that the decision arrived at by the Commission was pre-mature in view of the fact that before issuing any notice to the respondent and before taking pleadings of both the parties on record, the Commission could not have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of the enquiry, i.e., whether the questions arising for decision in the light of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed and complicated investigation into the facts which were incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner. Mr. Narasimha further argued that the Commission ought to have justifiably formed an opinion on the need of driving away the complainant to the civil court which could only be done after the pleadings of both the 8 parties were placed before the Court. Accordingly, Mr.Narasimha contended that the matter must be sent back to the Commission to issue notice on the respondent to place their defence before it and thereafter to form an opinion as to whether the Commission would be justified in entertaining the complaint of the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 38 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

M/S. Wellarea Trading Pvt. Ltd vs Smt. Navita Rustogi on 16 April, 2008

In the case of CCI Chambers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., as reported in AIR 2004 SC 184, the Apex Court observed that "the anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a Forum under the Act is to be determined is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry i.e. by doing away with the need of a detailed and complicated method of recording evidence. It has to be remembered that the fora under the Act at every level are headed by experienced persons. The National Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court. The State Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court. Each District Forum is headed by person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. Mere complication either of facts or of law cannot be a ground for the denial of hearing by a Forum under the Act."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharath Auto Cars (P) Ltd vs Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd on 6 January, 2026

17. Further, it is also well-settled legal position [CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 233] that requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry."
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharath Auto Cars (P) Ltd vs Henri D Souza on 6 January, 2026

17. Further, it is also well-settled legal position [CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 233] that requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry."
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Through Its Proprietor Mukesh B. ... vs New India Assurance Co Ltd Through The ... on 18 August, 2025

18. As regards the judgments on which the reliance is 16 6291.2024WP.odt placed by the petitioner, it must be stated that all these judgments unanimously state that only because some complicated questions of facts arise for consideration, the adjudicatory forums under the Consumer Protection Act should not refuse to entertain the complaints by relegating the consumer to Civil Court. In the present case, the principal allegations appear to be against the Surveyor. The Surveyor is not a party to the Consumer Complaint. Likewise, the allegations are made against the officials of the insurance company regarding obtaining signatures on the blank receipts. Stand of the petitioner in the F.I.R., loss report submitted to Surveyor and pleadings in the complaint do not go hand in hand. In the considered opinion of this Court, the averment in the complaint itself discloses that mixed questions of facts arise for consideration in the Consumer Complaint, which will involve recording lengthy evidence, which will be beyond the scope of summary inquiry, which the adjudicatory forums under the Consumer Protection Act are expected to undertake. As regards the judgment in the matters of CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd., and Himanshu Trading Co. (supra), which lay down that normally notice should be issued and after the pleadings of the respondents are found, the 17 6291.2024WP.odt Commission should form opinion as to nature and scope of inquiry to determine as to whether the facts of the case warrant relegating the consumer to the Civil Court or not. Whereas, the said legal principle cannot be disputed and is also binding on this Court, it needs to be stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that when facts of case involve adjudication by recording lengthy evidence, which is beyond jurisdiction of a forum undertaking summary inquiry, consumer should be asked to work out the matter in a full dressed trial in a summary suit. It is well settled that the ratio of every judgment must be interpreted and understood in the backdrop of peculiar facts of each case. In the facts of the present case, the pleadings and material on record relied upon by the petitioner would by itself indicate that complicated questions of facts involving lengthy evidence will have to be led. There are personal allegations made against the Surveyor and officials of the insurance company. There is also contradiction in the pleadings and the documents. Likewise, the loss claimed in the complaint, report to Surveyor and F.I.R. is also not for the same amount. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference and the 18 6291.2024WP.odt petition is liable to be dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1