Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Janpriya Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. vs Amit Soni on 7 December, 2021

Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Lt Udhay Bhan Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2022

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding, of the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to the effect that the respondent was a "consumer" vis-a-vis the petitioner is directly contrary to the recent enunciation of the law in para 25 of the report in Janpriya Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Soni 1, which reads 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1269 CM(M) 907/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:07.09.2022 12:45:25 thus:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Airbnb India Pvt. Ltd. vs Varun Mirchandani on 21 November, 2024

The Appellant relied on Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 2021, titled Janpriya Buildstate vs. Amit Soni & Ors., decided on 07.12.2021 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the District Commission failed to consider that the Respondent is not a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the Respondent neither paid any consideration nor agreed to pay any consideration to the Appellant. He further argued that the District Commission failed to recognize that the complaint was bad in law for non-joinder of a necessary party, namely Airbnb Ireland, the relevant Airbnb entity for Indian users of the platform, and that the Respondent failed to implead it in the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Airbnb India Pvt. Ltd. vs Varun Mirchandani on 21 November, 2024

The Appellant relied on Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 2021, titled Janpriya Buildstate vs. Amit Soni & Ors., decided on 07.12.2021 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the District Commission failed to consider that the Respondent is not a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the Respondent neither paid any consideration nor agreed to pay any consideration to the Appellant. He further argued that the District Commission failed to recognize that the complaint was bad in law for non-joinder of a necessary party, namely Airbnb Ireland, the relevant Airbnb entity for Indian users of the platform, and that the Respondent failed to implead it in the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1