Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.24 seconds)Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Section 25 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
The Supreme
Court in its decision in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC
243 refuted the contention that the term "services" must be confined to services rendered in
connection with transfer of goods and that no complaint should be entertained for any
defect in relation to immovables such as a house or building or allotment of site. The
complainant in this case was aggrieved of either delay in delivery of possession of the
house or use of sub-standard material, etc., in the housing services. The Court said that the
jurisdiction under the Act could not be excluded even if the services in question related to
immovable property. It cannot, however, be denied that the facts and circumstances of the
said cases are distinctly different from those of the present case.
Mr.France B.Martins & Anr vs Mrs.Mafalda Maria Teresa Rodrigues on 24 August, 1999
The learned Division Bench in connection with the said case placed reliance upon
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of France B. Martins & Anr. Vs. Mafalda Maria
Teresa Rodrigues (Mrs.), 1999 (6) SCC 627 and the case of the Secretary, T.C.A. Credit
Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors., 2004 (1) SCC 305. Both the said cases
have already been referred to and so far the applicability of the same is concerned, Article
141 of the Constitution leaves no scope for controversy.