Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Merlin Group , Merlin Oxford vs Smt. Sunanda De on 27 January, 2016 cites

E.I.C.M. Exports Ltd vs South Indian Corpn. (Agencies) ... on 21 July, 2009

In another decision reported in 2012 (4) CPR 191 (NC) [Arun Khanna vs. Smt. Sashi Sharma & Ors.] the Hon'ble National Commission relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2009 (SC) 3127 [E.I.C.M. Exports Ltd. vs. South Indian Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. & Anr.] held that complaint before Consumer Forum was not a suit.  The question of maintainability of consumer complaint before this Commission was raised in FA 1030 of 2013 wherein it was held that the bar of jurisdiction u/s12A was not applicable in consumer cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Merlin Tf Lake View & Ors vs Ruchir Jain & Ors on 26 August, 2015

We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the matter pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta was disposed of vide APOT No.382 of 2015 GA No.21718 of 2015 [Merlin TF Lake View & Ors. vs. Ruchir Jain & Ors.] and liberty has been given to proceed in the Consumer Fora.  It is the main contention of the Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicants that there is bar of jurisdiction u/s 12A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion and Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - M Chellur - Full Document

Ncdrc Bar Association (Regd.) vs Davinder Malhotra & Ors. on 18 July, 2008

The Hon'ble National Commission in the decision reported in 2008 CTJ 954 (NC) [NCDRC Bar Association (Regd.) vs. Davinder Malhotra & Ors.] held that the Consumer Fora in the country are bound to follow the decisions rendered by the National Commission in the consumer cases filed under the provisions of C. P. Act, 1986.  The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission, therefore, is a binding precedent on this Commission and relying on the aforesaid decisions, we are unable to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicants regarding the bar of jurisdiction u/s 12A of the said Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

M/S. Vindhya Projects Pvt. Ltd vs Sri Alok Kumar Basu & Ors on 27 June, 2013

The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has opposed the Miscellaneous Applications and has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No.2540 of 2004 [Basudeb Banerjee & Anr. vs. Amlan Bhattacharya & Ors.]; RP No.2541 of 2004 [Basudeb Banerjee vs. Ranindra Kumar Dutta & Anr.]; the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in C.O. No.823 of 2013 [M/s Vindhya Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sri Alok Kumar Basu & Ors.]; IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) 1 [Cicily Kallarackal vs. Vehicle Factory]; Civil Appeal No.4290 of 2003 (SC) [E.I.C.M. Exports Ltd. vs. South Indian Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. & Anr.]; decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (17068 - 17069/2010) [M/s Advance Scientific Equip.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - P Mandal - Full Document
1