Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005
11. The Constitution Bench took into consideration the provision under
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as well as the provision of Section 13(2) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as also the judgments referred by the
two Judges Bench and held that in the commercial suit, time for filing
written statement provided under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is meant to
be mandatory, but not so for ordinary civil suits. Similarly for the cases
under the Consumer Protection Act also, the time provided under
Section 13(2)(a) of the Act, 1986 has to be read as mandatory and not
directory. It has further been held that so far the judgments of Kailash
(Supra.)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March, 2020
10. Thereafter, a two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Co.
Ltd., reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 287, has made reference to
the decision of the Constitutional Bench relating to the grant of time
for filing response to the complaint under the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. One of the questions, which was
referred by the two Judges Bench, has been detailed in para 3 of the
said judgment, which is quoted as under:-
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi on 12 August, 2002
"There is an apparent conflict between the
decisions of this Court in Topline Shoes
Limited v. Corporation Bank [(2002) 6 SCC 33],
Kailash v. Nankhu [(2005) 4 SCC 480], Salem
Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India [(2005)
6 SCC 344] on the one hand and J.J.
Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC
635 and NIA v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold
Storage [2014 AIOL 4615] on the other in so far as
the power of the Courts to extend time for filing of
written statement/reply to a complaint is
concerned. The earlier mentioned line of decisions
take the view that the relevant provisions including
those of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 are directory in nature and the Courts
concerned have the power to extend time for filing
the written statement. The second line of decisions
which are also of coordinate Benches however
takes a contrary view and hold that when it comes
to power of the Consumer Fora to extend the time
for filing a reply there is no such power.
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
and Salem Advocate Bar Association (Supra.) are
concerned, they hold the field with regard to Order VIII Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure and would not be applicable to the cases
dealing with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 or such other enactment wherein a provision akin to section
13(2) is there and the consequence is also provided.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M/S Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure ... vs M/S Grand Venezia Buyers Association ... on 11 February, 2016
"3. The first question was referred by a two judge Bench of this
Court vide an Order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Civil Appeal
No(s).1083-1084 of 2016, Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. v. Grand Venezia Buyers Association (Reg), the
relevant portion of which is as under:
Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002
"There is an apparent conflict between the
decisions of this Court in Topline Shoes
Limited v. Corporation Bank [(2002) 6 SCC 33],
Kailash v. Nankhu [(2005) 4 SCC 480], Salem
Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India [(2005)
6 SCC 344] on the one hand and J.J.
Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC
635 and NIA v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold
Storage [2014 AIOL 4615] on the other in so far as
the power of the Courts to extend time for filing of
written statement/reply to a complaint is
concerned. The earlier mentioned line of decisions
take the view that the relevant provisions including
those of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 are directory in nature and the Courts
concerned have the power to extend time for filing
the written statement. The second line of decisions
which are also of coordinate Benches however
takes a contrary view and hold that when it comes
to power of the Consumer Fora to extend the time
for filing a reply there is no such power.