Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)
The Federation Of Hotels And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Along With ... on 5 March, 2007
cites
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi on 21 December, 1979
In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi the Bench comprising their Lordships P.N. Bhagwati, V.D. Tulzapurkar and R.S. Pathak, JJ. extended the above ratio even to restaurants, in these words:
Bharathidasan University & Anr vs All India Council For Technical ... on 24 September, 2001
9. There is a plethora of precedents prescribing the parameters of delegated legislation, such as the Rules before us, which precedents unequivocally state that the frontiers of Rules cannot be wider further or broader than those established by the statute or Act under whose umbrella the Rules have been created. Attention has rightly been drawn by Mr. Bhasin to Bharathidasan University v. All-India Council for Technical Education (2001) 8 SCC 767 in which the Supreme Court has opined that where powers to make rules and regulations are confined by the statute to certain limits, rules and regulations which are not within those limits must be ignored by the Court.
I.T.C. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ... on 10 September, 2004
10. Mr. Jayant Nath has relied on the definitions and provisions of the SWM Act to contend that the supply of mineral water in hotels and restaurants is fully covered by the said Act and Rules. He has placed reliance on paragraphs 36 to 41 of ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi . The Apex Court has observed that the "SWM Act as well as the Packaged Commodities Rules have been enacted to protect the consumers who are entitled to pay only such price as has been printed thereon. The purpose of printing the MRP on cigarette packages is to achieve a standardisation of prices throughout the country and to inform consumers of the appropriate price of the product. There is no scope for "underdeclaration" because the consumer can insist on the retailer abiding by the printed MRP. Provisions for penalties under the Act on the retailer ensure this. It is not open to the retailer who may be proceeded against for selling above the printed MRP to contend that it was incorrect or false, nor can the retailer defend any violation of the printed MRP by asking for an enquiry into its reasonableness". The Apex Court had also noted that in the event that the retailer or manufacturer violates Rule 23(2) of SWM Rules "he is liable to be proceeded against and may be fined up to an extent of Rs. 2000/- per package under Rule 39 of the Packaged Commodities Rules and Section 67 of the SWM Act". These observations were made without any reference to Associated Hotels and Northern India Caterers; the assumption was that the transaction was a 'sale of goods'. The question before the Court centered around the rate at which excise duty was chargeable on packaged cigarettes. It was not controverter that the engagement was in the nature of a sale between a customer and a dealer defined under the SWM Act. Most importantly, the vires of the Rules had not been assailed on the grounds that they travelled beyond the Act and were, therefore, ultra vires to it. This decision is, therefore, of no avail to the Respondents.
Mumbai Bidi Tambaku Vyapari Sangh And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 21 November, 2002
11. Mr. Nath further contended that even if the Sale of Goods Act was not applicable to the transactions in question, they fall within the concept of distribution and delivery as defined in Section 2 of the Act. This argument flies in the face of the ratio of Associated Hotels and Northern India Caterers. For this very reason a decision in Mumbai Bidi Tambaku Vyapari Sangh v. Union of India and T.T. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India are of no avail.
P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt Ltd. & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 9 May, 1996
11. Mr. Nath further contended that even if the Sale of Goods Act was not applicable to the transactions in question, they fall within the concept of distribution and delivery as defined in Section 2 of the Act. This argument flies in the face of the ratio of Associated Hotels and Northern India Caterers. For this very reason a decision in Mumbai Bidi Tambaku Vyapari Sangh v. Union of India and T.T. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India are of no avail.
M/S India Photographic Co. Ltd vs H.D. Shourie on 3 August, 1999
In India Photographic Co. Ltd. v. H.D. Shourie the company was selling Kodak films without the price being printed on the packages containing the films. The contention was that Rule 6(2) of SWM Rules were applicable as the photographic films were being sold by the distributor and not by the manufacturer. It was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court observed that acceptance of "such a plea would result in frustrating the provisions of the 1986 Act and thereby encourage the retailers or distributors of foreign-made goods to charge prices according to their convenience without letting the consumer know the actual price of the commodity". In all humility their Lordships have articulated a summation of the SWM Act; it enjoins a declaration of weight, measure, number and price. It imposes punishment where a declaration has not been made or has been incorrectly made.