Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 153 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd vs Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors on 18 August, 1998

Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs Bhagwan & Anr. on 21 November, 2022

3.      The petitioner is before us impugning this order on the grounds that the State Commission erred in putting the onus on the petitioner to get the seeds tested as also the burden of proof to prove that the seeds were not defective. The State Commission's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) NCJ (SC) 464 is assailed as erroneous since this judgment was applicable to a particular case where there was no finding by the Apex Court which declined to interfere under Article 136 and observed that this Commission should have given a reasoned order in view of the State Commission's findings. It is also urged that the State Commission erred in not accepting the report of the Officers of the Agriculture Department,which had been accepted by the District Forum and that the petitioner could not have proved that the seeds were defective, since a negative cannot be proved in law. It is also argued that the State Commission erred in determining the loss without there being any basis for it on record. It is also argued that the impugned order overlooked the fact that the Officers of the Agriculture Department, had advised the respondent to undertake various chemical treatments and that the same had not been done.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. National Seeds Corpn. Ltd vs M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr on 16 January, 2012

37.In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per 69 acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had not collected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 973 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

The Gen. Manager,Hyderabad. vs T.Ramulu,W/O.Pedda ... on 25 April, 2013

In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had not collected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.Eswara Reddy, vs Aadhar Seeds Private Limited, on 4 June, 2012

39. The reasons assigned by the National Commission in the aforementioned three cases are similar to the reasons assigned by the State Commission which were approved by this Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra) and in our view the proposition laid down in those cases represent the correct legal position.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Gen. Manager Andhra Pradesh State ... vs Katta Bal Reddy, S/O.Veera Reddy, ... on 25 April, 2013

In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had not collected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd vs Fayyazahemed & 2 Ors. on 21 November, 2022

8.     Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the reliance of the State Commission on Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., vs Avalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) NCJ (SC) 464 is erroneous as there was no finding arrived at in the case. It has been argued that in various orders of this Commission it has been held that the reasons for poor yield of crops can be several and cannot necessarily be ascribed to only the poor quality of seeds.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. vs Pv Krishna Reddy on 18 November, 2008

Another contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers-respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and analysis by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g), H.N. Shankara Shastri v. Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka reported in (2004) 6 SCC 230 (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Seelam Rama Mohan & Anr. reported in III (1996) CPJ 435 (see paragraph
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 24 - Cited by 50 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next