Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
Malout Beej Bhandar, New Grain Market vs Malkiat Singh Son Of Gurdeep Singh on 9 November, 2009 cites

M/S Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd vs Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors on 18 August, 1998

"21. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers- respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and analysis by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati F.A. No.1330 of 2009 8 Chandra Reddy & others 1998 CTJ 561 (SC) (CP) = (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g), H.N. Shankara Shastri v. Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, (2004) 6 SCC 230 (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Seelam Rama Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see paragraph 9) and M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 65 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

H.N. Shankara Shastry vs The Asstt. Director Of Agriculture, ... on 6 May, 2004

"21. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers- respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and analysis by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati F.A. No.1330 of 2009 8 Chandra Reddy & others 1998 CTJ 561 (SC) (CP) = (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g), H.N. Shankara Shastri v. Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, (2004) 6 SCC 230 (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Seelam Rama Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see paragraph 9) and M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 43 - S V Patil - Full Document

National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. vs M. Madhusudan Reddy on 24 March, 2003

"21. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers- respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and analysis by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati F.A. No.1330 of 2009 8 Chandra Reddy & others 1998 CTJ 561 (SC) (CP) = (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g), H.N. Shankara Shastri v. Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, (2004) 6 SCC 230 (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Seelam Rama Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see paragraph 9) and M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra)."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 12 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1