Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 521 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Cci Chambers Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd vs Development Credit Bank Ltd on 29 August, 2003

Vishamber Sunderdas Badlani And Anr. vs Indian Bank And 3 Ors. on 28 September, 2007

20. But, we are not deciding the question of complicated nature at initial stage. Both the parties are before us. Opposite parties have filed their written version. Rejoinder has also been filed. Some documentary evidence has also been filed and further evidence is yet to be taken on record. So at the very initial stage, we are not passing the order as was held in CCI Chambers. This question can be decided after pleadings were filed whether the matter is complicated enough in the light of the said judgment at this stage. In this regard, the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 10 are relevant, which are as under.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

Nand Kishore Pathak vs Icici Bank Ltd. on 5 October, 2018

8.                We observe that the complainant/appellant has alleged that the opposite parties/respondents have misappropriated the money from the complainant's/appellant's bank account.  The District Forum admitted the complaint and notice was issued to the opposite parties/respondents.  The least which could have been done was that the reply along with documents and supporting evidence of opposite parties/respondents would have been taken on record.  The matter requires detailed investigation or elaborate evidence, could have been decided later. Power vested under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could be availed to decide the pedestal of the matter.  As specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Co-op Housing Society Ltd Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd "Only when the pleadings for both parties were available should the -4- Commission have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of 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 was incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner.  Then the Commission could have justifiably formed an opinion on the need away the complainant to the Civil Court."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandeep Nayak vs Icici Bank Ltd. on 5 October, 2018

8.                We observe that the complainant/appellant has alleged that the opposite parties/respondents have misappropriated the money from the complainant's/appellant's bank account.  The District Forum admitted the complaint and notice was issued to the opposite parties/respondents.  The least which could have been done was that the reply along with documents and supporting evidence of opposite parties/respondents would have been taken on record.  The matter requires detailed investigation or elaborate evidence, could have been decided later. Power vested under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could be availed to decide the pedestal of the matter.  As specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Co-op Housing Society Ltd Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd "Only when the pleadings for both parties were available should the -4- Commission have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of 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 was incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner.  Then the Commission could have justifiably formed an opinion on the need away the complainant to the Civil Court."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Virendra Nayak vs Icici Bank Ltd. on 5 October, 2018

8.                We observe that the complainant/appellant has alleged that the opposite parties/respondents have misappropriated the money from the complainant's/appellant's bank account.  The District Forum admitted the complaint and notice was issued to the opposite parties/respondents.  The least which could have been done was that the reply along with documents and supporting evidence of opposite parties/respondents would have been taken on record.  The matter requires detailed investigation or elaborate evidence, could have been decided later. Power vested under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could be availed to decide the pedestal of the matter.  As specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Co-op Housing Society Ltd Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd "Only when the pleadings for both parties were available should the -4- Commission have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of 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 was incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner.  Then the Commission could have justifiably formed an opinion on the need away the complainant to the Civil Court."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next