Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Improvement Trust, Ludhiana & Anr vs Shakti Co-Op. House Bldg. Soceity Ltd on 13 April, 2009

M/S R.M.Developers Associates vs G.Nagaraju S/O Late Satyanarayan Raju on 18 November, 2013

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party filed the appeal contending that the dispute cannot be construed as service between the parties as the entire transaction itself is only the agreement of sale without any assurance or undertaking for any development of infrastructure/amenities/layout approvals and that the District Forum failed to appreciate the ratio laid down in Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Shakti Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., and UT Chandigarh Administration & Another Vs Amerjeet Singh and another. It is contended that the criminal case filed the respondent ended in acquittal on merits and that in CC NO.459 of 2008 the respondent admitted that he was unable to pay the balance sale consideration.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Vidhyaharan vs Forza Italia & 2 Ors on 30 January, 2023

In this regard, it would be relevant to rely upon the judgment cited by the 3rd opposite party in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana & anr vs. Shakthi Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, reported in 2009(3) RCR (Civil)-447 (SC), para 16, wherein it is observed that,    " The averments in the complaint by the consumer cannot be taken as a Gospel truth.  To support a finding of "unfair trade practice", there has to be some cogent material before the Commission and any inferential finding is not sufficient to attract Section 2(r) of the Act.  Of course, the burden of proof, the nature of proof and adequacy thereof depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Air India(Nacil) vs Yash Pal on 6 March, 2018

6.      There is no cogent evidence on the file showing that OP No.1 entered into unfair trade practice. Mere apprehension is not ground to come to this conclusion, so, observation of learned District Forum to this effect cannot be sustained, keeping in view the opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in Improvement Trust Vs. Shakti Coop. House Building Society Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 369. However, there is deficiency in service as opined by learned District Forum because appellant/OP No.1 did not make alternative arrangement after the cancellation of the flight. So, learned District Forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned in impugned order. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1