Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)
Vyankateshwara Infrastructure And ... vs Smt.Sunanda Parchaki on 27 March, 2018 cites

Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. vs Economic Transport Organisation And ... on 2 May, 1990

It is held  in that  case that while, ordinarily, claims arising out of breach of contract will have to be agitated before the regular civil Courts and that grievances relating to loss or injury caused on account of negligence and deficiency in the performance of services which are hired for consideration, have been classified for special protection under the Act and in such cases the aggrieved consumer is entitled  to invoke the jurisdiction of redressal forums constituted under the Act, seeking relief as specified in the Act. Hence, the ground on which the State Commission declined to investigate into the complaint does not appeal to us as correct or sound.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority, vs D.C. Sharma on 18 February, 2014

It is held in that case that it is also well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, go on filing meritless petitions in different Fora.  Time and again courts have held that if any litigant approaches the court of equity with unclean hands, suppress the material facts, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial Forums, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold.  Equity demand that such unscrupulous litigant whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with heavy hands.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vishamber Sunderdas Badlani & Anr vs Indian Bank & Ors on 11 February, 2008

It is observed in that case that seeing various judgements of the Supreme Court and this Commission, it is evident that wherever not only the complicated questions of law but disputed questions of facts, relating to unauthorised representations made about paying higher rate of interest and requirement of recording voluminous evidence etc. and relating to forgery and conspiracy involving eight persons and other points mentioned earlier are involved, it would be desirable that the matter should not be dealt with by this Commission and could be relegated to the civil Court.  We feel that in the present state of law and the observations of the Supreme Court itself and the aforesaid circumstances; we cannot take any other view.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Chunilal Pranjivandas & Co. And Ors. vs Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. on 4 April, 2002

It has been observed in that case that we are also of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for consideration and decisions in summary manner and should proceed to full-fledged trial. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the Complainant's rights to approach any civil Court or any other forum to seek redressal of his grievance.  In the light of the above, we do not express any opinion on the rights and obligations of the parties.  In the circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Lachhman Dass Alias Lachhman Ram vs Joginder Singh Mistry on 2 July, 2012

Lachman Dass Alias Lacchmanram Ajmer Singh Vs. Joginder Singh Mistry, decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 02.07.2012 In that case, it is held that possibility of a false claim as a counter-blast therefore cannot be ruled out especially when the complainant has filed no rejoinder.  In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error calling for our interference in the impugned order and we dismiss the revision petition in limine.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1