Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 461 (2.95 seconds)
Documents citing Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000

Sohan Singh vs M/S Nitishree Infrastructures Ltd on 17 April, 2023

[1]Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017 [2](2012) 2 SCC 506 [3]Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd [4](2011) 5 SCC 532 [5]Vimal Kishore Shah v Jayesh Dinesh Shah (2016) 8 SCC 788 [6] (2016)10 SCC 386 ;N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers [7](2016) 10 SCC 729 [8](2011) 5 SCC 532 [9](1996) 6  the SCC 385 [10] (2012) 2 SCC 506 [11](2018) 11 SCC 337 [12](2003) 5 SCC 531 [13](1994) 1 SCC 243 So it is clear that The Consumer Protection Act is a special Act and even if there is a clause of arbitrator in the agreement, it will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. So this court has jurisdiction to try the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sohan Singh vs M/S Nitishree Infrastructures Ltd on 17 April, 2023

[1]Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017 [2](2012) 2 SCC 506 [3]Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd [4](2011) 5 SCC 532 [5]Vimal Kishore Shah v Jayesh Dinesh Shah (2016) 8 SCC 788 [6] (2016)10 SCC 386 ;N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers [7](2016) 10 SCC 729 [8](2011) 5 SCC 532 [9](1996) 6  the SCC 385 [10] (2012) 2 SCC 506 [11](2018) 11 SCC 337 [12](2003) 5 SCC 531 [13](1994) 1 SCC 243 So it is clear that The Consumer Protection Act is a special Act and even if there is a clause of arbitrator in the agreement, it will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. So this court has jurisdiction to try the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahota Seeds Ltd vs M/S Nitishree Infrastructures Ltd on 17 April, 2023

[1]Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017 [2](2012) 2 SCC 506 [3]Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd [4](2011) 5 SCC 532 [5]Vimal Kishore Shah v Jayesh Dinesh Shah (2016) 8 SCC 788 [6] (2016)10 SCC 386 ;N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers [7](2016) 10 SCC 729 [8](2011) 5 SCC 532 [9](1996) 6  the SCC 385 [10] (2012) 2 SCC 506 [11](2018) 11 SCC 337 [12](2003) 5 SCC 531 [13](1994) 1 SCC 243 So it is clear that The Consumer Protection Act is a special Act and even if there is a clause of arbitrator in the agreement, it will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. So this court has jurisdiction to try the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahota Seeds Ltd vs M/S Nitishree Infrastructures Ltd on 17 April, 2023

[1]Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017 [2](2012) 2 SCC 506 [3]Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd [4](2011) 5 SCC 532 [5]Vimal Kishore Shah v Jayesh Dinesh Shah (2016) 8 SCC 788 [6] (2016)10 SCC 386 ;N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers [7](2016) 10 SCC 729 [8](2011) 5 SCC 532 [9](1996) 6  the SCC 385 [10] (2012) 2 SCC 506 [11](2018) 11 SCC 337 [12](2003) 5 SCC 531 [13](1994) 1 SCC 243 So it is clear that The Consumer Protection Act is a special Act and even if there is a clause of arbitrator in the agreement, it will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. So this court has jurisdiction to try the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Aerens Gold Souk International Pvt. ... vs Prem Kumar Gupta on 12 July, 2017

The issue sought to be raised is no more res integra as stands concluded by a number of authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (see Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 305 ; Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 294 ; and National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Madusudan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neeraj Munjal And Ors. vs Atul Grover And Anr. on 23 August, 2004

In this connection he has heavily relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (supra) on the basis of which the appeal of the petitioners was answered by the Supreme Court. To say the least, the said plea of the petitioners is wholly misconceived because firstly this Court by no stretch is in a position to correct the alleged inadvertent mistake in the order of the Supreme Court even if any such existed and secondly there seems to be no question of any inadvertent mistake because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to clarify the said order and dismissed the ap lication of the petitioner seeking a modification/clarification of the said order, therefore, there is absolutely no occasion for this Court to read the order of the Supreme Court in any other way. Learned counsel for the petitioners had the audacity to read the order of the Supreme court dated 25.7.2003 so as to mean that the application was not dismissed but simply disposed of with liberty to this Court to consider the question as to whether the objections could be filed by the petitioners under the A bitration Act, 1940 or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arguments appears to be fallacious on the face of it and are liable to be rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R C Jain - Full Document

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Thottathil Mohammed on 11 December, 2008

In these writ petitions, we need not have to decide whether a writ petition is maintainable or not before this Court against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , when a petition is filed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is rejected or allowed by the District Consumer W.P.C. No. 28890 of 2008 & con.cases -4- Forum, since we are disposing of these writ petitions following the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC 294}.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Prem Nath Motors Limited vs Ind Auto Limited And Anr. on 24 April, 2002

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant/complainant at length and examined the pleas as referred to above. We do not find any reason to disagree with the first contention that the impugned order is required to be passed after affording reasonable opportunity and fair hearing to the applicant/complainant. Therefore we need not refer to the judgments as cited by the applicant/complainant in this regard.
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mr. Prabhakar Balkrishna Vernekar, vs Mr. Madhav V. Joshi, on 27 March, 2014

Likewise, in the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd., vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (supra) the Apex Court noted that the National Commission was referring the matters to the third persons for consensual adjudication dehors the Arbitration Act and then making those awards the rule of the Court by passing orders based on the award and the Commission was not applying its own mind for adjudication of the disputes and thereby abdicating their own functions and duties, procedure which was unwarranted and unjustified. The Apex Court presumed, without laying down any law, in that behalf, that the National Commission could even refer disputes to Arbitration/Conciliation. However, such reference to arbitration could only be under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 or the Arbitration or Conciliation Act, 1996 and proceeded to treat the award as an award made by an arbitrator by giving option to the parties to file objections and a direction to the National Commission consider the said objections and give its own decision.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sukhjinder Singh vs M/S Ireo Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2016

The issue sought to be raised is no more res integra as stands concluded by a number of authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (see Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 305; Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 294; and National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Madusudan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next