Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.65 seconds)
Dr.Appasaheb M.Gadve And Ors vs Ms Auto India Through Partner Mr.Rakesh ... on 11 August, 2022
cites
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 27 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Housing Board vs K.A. Nagamani on 6 May, 2019
In any case, the contentions raised by Shri. Tamhankar -the learned
8 (RP/19/127)
Advocate appearing for the petitioners, cannot be accepted in view of the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Karnataka Housing Board versus K.A. Nagamani, on which reliance is placed
by Shri. Pawar- learned Advocate for the respondent/ complainant. As such, in
view of the observations made earlier, we feel that, the revision itself is not at
all tenable in view of the express provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to accept the
contentions advanced by Shri.Tamhankar, learned Advocate for the petitioners
and so we proceed to pass the following order-
Section 245 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Jitender Bajaj vs State (U.T. Chandigarh) And Anr. on 25 April, 2005
Further, he has relied upon one Judgement in the case of
Jitender Bajaj versus State (U.T Chandigarh) and others in criminal
miscellaneous number 2066-M of 1992, 25/04/2005 decided by the Hon'ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court. In that case, the complaint was dismissed for
non appearance of complainant and it was observed that, when in summons case
if complaint is dismissed for non appearance of complainant or his counsel, it
will mean acquittal of accused and second complaint is not competent. We have
carefully gone through both the Judgements on which reliance is placed by Shri.
Tamhankar, learned Advocate for the petitioners. We are of the view that the
same are not applicable as they were not relating to the execution proceeding
under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Further as observed earlier, the
provisions as mentioned in chapter XXI relating to the summary trial alone have
been made applicable to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not all the
provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 As such, we are unable to accept
the contention of Shri. Tamhankar, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioners that section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would be directly
applicable to the execution proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
M.K. Meena & 3 Ors. vs Dr. Satish Swaroop Gehlot on 19 January, 2017
Coming now to the Judgements on which reliance has been placed by Shri.
Tamhankar, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the case of M.K.
Meena and 3 others versus Dr. Satish Swaroop Gehlot decided by the Hon'ble
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision
6 (RP/19/127)
Petition No.858 of 2015 decided on 19th January, 2017 in which it has been
observed that under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the
consumer fora have been conferred the powers of Judicial Magistrate of first
class for the trial of offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1