Satish Mathur vs Ashma Bai 35 Acqa/47/2010 State Of C.G. ... on 18 June, 2018
In Kanta Mathur vs. N.I.C. Ltd.; ( (2015) CPJ
151 (NC), it was held that claim cannot be reopened, once full and final
settlement of the claim is accepted.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Union Of India And Ors vs Kishori Lal Bablani on 3 December, 1998
Law came out with all its brilliance
in The Union of India vs. Kishori Lal Gupta; AIR 1959 SC 1362, wherein
the Apex Court postulated:
Section 15 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Smt. Pushpa Singhal vs Haryana Urban Development Authority, on 4 February, 2013
13. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the law laid
down by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi in Pushpa Singhal vs. Haryana Urban Devlopment Authority &
Anr.; II (2013) CPJ 166 (NC), wherein it was propounded that the refund
of 10% of the tentative price of the plot was held justified, as the petitioner
had surrendered the plot of her sweet will and the price thereof, was
6
accepted without any protest. This ruling is fully applicable to the present
set of facts. It is also wroth to observe that the version narrated in the
complaint is that the booking was floated without having title over the land
under the project. The application moved by the complainant for the
cancellation of booking makes a simple mention - 'seeking cancellation,
prayed accordingly.' No reason has been assigned for seeking cancellation.
It is worth to observe that despite the letter issued by the company, to the
complainant, the next installment was not paid by the complainant. In this
way the complainant committed breach of contract at his own sweet will.
We have no hesitation to remark that one who comes to the court, should
not only to come with clean hands, but must further come with clean
mind, clean heart and clean objectives.
Ishwer Chand Yadav vs The General Manager Micromax & Anr on 10 August, 2017
The appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
has been preferred against the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar
(hereinafter to be referred as 'The District Forum') in case No. 71 of 2008
styled as Ishwar Chand vs. Manager, M/s Omaxe Ltd., whereby the
consumer complaint was allowed in part, directing the O.P. to pay
Rs. 79,852/- with interest @ 8% per annum, alongwith damages Rs. 3,000/-
and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses, within one month.
1