Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 766 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing State Bank Of India vs M/S. B.S. Agricultural Industries(I) on 20 March, 2009

Raj Kumar Goyal vs M/S Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 3 March, 2015

In Kushal K. Rana Vs. M/s DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd.s case (supra), though the business space was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement dated 23.12.2008 yet, admittedly, the same was not ready till 22.12.2011, whereas, in the case, in hand, the possession of the flat, in question, was offered to the complainant within the stipulated time, and, therefore, this authority relied upon by the Counsel for the complainant is also distinguishable on facts.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Billions Honour Accounting Services ... vs Chennai-Iii on 30 May, 2025

14. Though Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the correctness of the order impugned before us, can be decided in an appeal before the CESTAT and prayed to sustain the order, dated 15-2-2016 in W.P. No. 5501 of 59 2016, in the light of the above discussion and the decision in State Bank of India's case (cited supra), we are not inclined to accept the said contention. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has described the manner of disposal of an appeal, as illegality, the same can be corrected by this Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no useful purpose would be served in relegating the appellants to approach the alternative remedy. Courts have held that a writ petition is maintainable, when the act committed is per se illegal, and contrary to the statute.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aam India Manufacturing Corporation ... vs Chennai-Iii on 6 August, 2025

14. Though Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the correctness of the order impugned before us, can be decided in an appeal before the CESTAT and prayed to sustain the order, dated 15-2- 2016 in W.P. No. 5501 of 2016, in the light of the above discussion and the decision in State Bank of India's case (cited supra), we are not inclined to accept the said contention. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has described the manner of disposal of an appeal, as illegality, the same can be corrected by this Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no useful purpose would be served in relegating the appellants to approach the alternative remedy. Courts have held that a writ petition is maintainable, when the act committed is per se illegal, and contrary to the statute.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chetanbhai Pravinchandra Shah vs Hotel Shyam Lodge & 2 Ors. on 28 April, 2023

Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under Section 24A(1). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the recent judgments in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121 and Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company v. National Insurance Company and another (2009) 7 SCC 768."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Atul Gupta vs Haryana Urband Development Authority on 11 October, 2011

17. However, on the point of limitation it cannot but be held that the State Commission was perfectly justified to record a finding that the complaint before the District Forum was hopelessly barred by time and should not have been entertained. The Honble Supreme Court in the case titled as State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (supra) has in para-8 clearly held that If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and therefore the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. In the case in hand, admittedly, the letter of provisional allotment was cancelled on 27th of November, 1996 by the Estate Officer, HUDA, when the cause of action arose and the complaint has been filed before the District Forum on 4th of August, 2003, after a lapse of more than six years. Further, the petitioner/complainant had filed an appeal against the cancellation order of the Estate Officer before the competent appellate authority i.e. the Administrator, HUDA, which was dismissed on 16th of April, 1998. Even if this date is taken into account as the date when the cause of action arose, even then filing of the complaint before the District Forum on 4th of August, 2003 is clearly barred by time. What is, however, to be noted is that the petitioner/complainant did not even bother to file an application for condonation of the delay.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Apple-I Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Axis Bank Ltd on 27 April, 2022

That the ld. Advocate of the complainant Mr. H. N. Dave has submitted that as per para 13 of the complaint the opponent bank was informed to make necessary change in the bank account operating system on 15.12.2011.However the bank has effected the said change in account operating mode of operation only on 12.7.2012 the same came to the knowledge of the complainant no. 2 when the complainant lodged the FIR on 13.10.2012 and charge-sheet was filed on 29.7.2013 and from the documents submitted by the bank it has gathered about the deficiency in service provided by the bank. Hence this cause of action which is otherwise continue one and accordingly the present complaint was filed on 15.7.2014 is well within the period of limitation. Further more ld. Advocate of complainant Mr. H.N.Dave has submitted that the judgment cited by the ld. Advocate of the opponent Mr. V.M. Pancholi of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of India v/s B.S. Agricultural Industries reported in II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) is concern the same is not applicable absolutely and it is against the opponent as much as the complaint is well within the period of limitation and it is not barred by the time.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rus Marketing And Creative Unit vs Coimbatore on 2 April, 2026

14. Though Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the correctness of the order impugned before us, can be decided in an appeal before the CESTAT and prayed to sustain the order, dated 15-2-2016 in W.P. No. 5501 of 2016, in the light of the above discussion and the decision in State Bank of India's case (cited supra), we are not inclined to accept the said contention. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has described the manner of disposal of an appeal, as illegality, the same can be corrected by this Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no useful purpose would be served in relegating the appellants to approach the alternative remedy. Courts have held that a writ petition is maintainable, when the act committed is per se illegal, and contrary to the statute.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

South Nests Software Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Chennai-Ii on 30 May, 2025

14. Though Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the correctness of the order impugned before us, can be decided in an appeal before the CESTAT and prayed to sustain the order, dated 15-2-2016 in W.P. No. 5501 of 2016, in the light of the above discussion and the decision in State Bank of India's case (cited supra), we are not inclined to accept the said contention. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has described the manner of disposal of an appeal, as illegality, the same can be corrected by this Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no useful purpose would be served in relegating the appellants to approach the alternative remedy. Courts have held that a writ petition is maintainable, when the act committed is per se illegal, and contrary to the statute.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nobel King Purchase Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner-Commissioner Of Gst&Cce ... on 30 May, 2025

14. Though Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the correctness of the order impugned before us, can be decided in an appeal before the CESTAT and prayed to sustain the order, dated 15-2-2016 in W.P. No. 5501 of 2016, in the light of the above discussion and the decision in State Bank of India's case (cited supra), we are not inclined to accept the said contention. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has described the manner of disposal of an appeal, as illegality, the same can be corrected by this Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no useful purpose would be served in relegating the appellants to approach the alternative remedy. Courts have held that a writ petition is maintainable, when the act committed is per se illegal, and contrary to the statute.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next