Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)
Co-Operative House Building Society ... vs Dharampal on 24 January, 2024 cites

Kishore Lal vs Chairman, Employees State Insurance ... on 8 May, 2007

"14. In our view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. In the Complaints filed by them, the Appellants had primarily challenged the action of respondent No.1 to refund the amounts deposited by them and they extinguished their entitlement to get the flats. Therefore, the mere fact that the action taken by Respondent No.1 was approved by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and higher authorities, cannot deprive the Appellants of their legitimate right to seek remedy under the Act, which is in addition to the other remedies available to them under the Cooperative Societies Act. Law on this issue must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in Thirumurugan Co operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M Lalitha; Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. 2007 (4) SCC 579 and National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy 2012 (2) SCC 506."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 116 - Full Document

M/S. National Seeds Corpn. Ltd vs M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr on 16 January, 2012

"14. In our view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. In the Complaints filed by them, the Appellants had primarily challenged the action of respondent No.1 to refund the amounts deposited by them and they extinguished their entitlement to get the flats. Therefore, the mere fact that the action taken by Respondent No.1 was approved by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and higher authorities, cannot deprive the Appellants of their legitimate right to seek remedy under the Act, which is in addition to the other remedies available to them under the Cooperative Societies Act. Law on this issue must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in Thirumurugan Co operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M Lalitha; Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. 2007 (4) SCC 579 and National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy 2012 (2) SCC 506."
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 973 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Emaar Mgf Land Ltd & Anr vs Aftab Singh on 7 November, 2017

17. As far as the issue of reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission, vide order dated 13.07.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 titled as Aftab Singh Versus EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. has held that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the Complainants and the builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 (M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Aftab Singh) was filed against the said order of the Hon'ble National Commission and it was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 13.02.2018. The Review Petitions (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 10.12.2018. Consequently, the existence of an Arbitration Clause or otherwise is not a bar to resolve this dispute by Consumer Commission.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 65 - R K Gauba - Full Document
1   2 Next