Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Ms.Sona Sharma vs 1. M/S Greenfield Sites Management ... on 2 April, 2012 cites

Jindal Oil vs Punjab Small Industries & Export ... on 25 August, 2008

In Jindal Oil and Ginning Factory Vs Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation (2009)CPJ26(Pb), a case decided by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, an application for allotment of an industrial plot, was made by the complainant, but no averment was made, in the complaint, by the complainant, that it was purchased with a view to earn livelihood, by way of self employment. However, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh, held that when the industrial plot was not allotted to the complainant, it sought refund, and, under these circumstances, it fell within the definition of a consumer.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995

In the above illustrations, if such a buyer, takes the assistance of one or two persons, to assist/help him, in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer. As against this, a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine, or other machine, to be plied or operated exclusively by another person, he would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation, flowing from the expressions "used by him", and "by means of self-employment" in the explanation. Similar principle of law was laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995(2) Consumer Law Today 474(SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 950 - B P Reddy - Full Document

M/S. Cheema Engineering Services vs Rajan Singh on 1 November, 1996

In M/s Cheema Engineering Services Vs Rajan Singh 1996(2)Consumer Law Today 397, a case decided by a Full Bench of the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the complainants, purchased a brick manufacturing machine, to operate himself, for earning his livelihood, by taking assistance of one or two persons. Under these circumstances, it was held that he fell within the definition of a consumer. The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. As stated above, it was only a small unit, measuring 125 square feet, the price whereof was Rs.5 lacs, out of which Rs.4,75,000/-, were paid by the appellant/complainant. The size of the unit, and the small consideration, for which it was purchased, in itself, were sufficient to prove that the same was purchased for running a small commercial activity, to earn livelihood, by way of self employment. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was not right, in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being illegal and invalid, are liable to be reversed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 98 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1