Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.80 seconds)Section 25 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005
13. All the above decisions unanimously condemn the training judicial gun, at the drop of the hat, against the unsuspecting parties. Going by the principles laid down in the above authorities, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned strictures passed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner are unwarranted. The view taken by the petitioner on the effect of the directions issued in Ext. P1 is also a plausible view. This observation may not be understood as fettering the powers of the State Commission in considering on merits, the appeal stated to have been filed by the Housing Board against the orders of the District Forum. Further, the strictures were passed without putting the petitioner on notice. Those disparaging remarks were totally unwarranted for the disposal of the case. There were no materials on record also, to support the view expressed by the District Forum against the petitioner. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The strictures contained in Ext.P2, which are challenged by the petitioner are expunged. No costs.
State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000
9. The Honourable Supreme Court, in State of Gujarat v. K.V. Joseph (2001) 2 SCC 156, held as follows:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 27 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
S.K. Bhatia & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 12 August, 1983
S.K. Bhatt v. State of U.P. , State of A.P. v. Janardhana Rao , Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan and State of M.P. v. K.K. Shukla and submitted that the aforementioned adverse observations are liable to be set aside in view of the principles laid down in the above said authorities.
State Of A.P vs S. Janardhana Rao on 17 November, 2004
S.K. Bhatt v. State of U.P. , State of A.P. v. Janardhana Rao , Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan and State of M.P. v. K.K. Shukla and submitted that the aforementioned adverse observations are liable to be set aside in view of the principles laid down in the above said authorities.
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & ... vs C.K. Rajan & Others on 14 August, 2003
S.K. Bhatt v. State of U.P. , State of A.P. v. Janardhana Rao , Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan and State of M.P. v. K.K. Shukla and submitted that the aforementioned adverse observations are liable to be set aside in view of the principles laid down in the above said authorities.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Naim on 15 March, 1963
6. The leading decision of the Apex Court on judicial strictures is in Mohammed Naim's case mentioned above. His Lordship S.K. Das, J., speaking for the Court said;