Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Goldrush Sales And Services Ltd. vs Rajiv Shukla & Anr. on 4 January, 2016

Smt.Uma vs Dr.Santosh Gupta on 25 May, 2026

29. Given the said limited scope, this Commission cannot commit an overreach so as to re-examine the issue of negligence once RP 383 2026 • 21 concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the fora below that have rightly relied upon the Order of the High Court as referred to above, where the Respondent No.1 has been found not to be negligent.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indusind Inppon Life Insurance Company ... vs Hem Narayan Pachori S/O. Umashankar ... on 25 March, 2026

14. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indusind Inppon Life Insurance Company ... vs Hem Narayan Pachori S/O. Umashankar ... on 25 March, 2026

14. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prasad Co-Op/ Credit Society Ltd. vs Manik Maruti Adsule on 27 September, 2024

"In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Jai Bharat Breeding Farm (Now Jai ... vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. on 22 October, 2024

"In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tata Motors Ltd. vs Jogender Sharma Through Lrs. & Ors. on 25 October, 2024

"In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tayal India Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Jogender Sharma Through Lrs. & 2 Ors. on 25 October, 2024

"In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Kamala Construction Pvt. Ltd. & 2 ... vs Soumen Saha on 20 October, 2023

"In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... vs Ramgopal Sharma & Anr. on 20 October, 2023

"In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramuthai & 3 Ors. vs Dr. K.G. Mohan Prasath on 5 December, 2023

"In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next