Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
Oriental India Insurnace Co Ltd vs Preetam Singh And Others on 12 April, 2022 cites

Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002

"there is an apparent conflict between the decision of this Court in Topline Shoes Limited  vs  Corporation Bank [(2002)6 SCC 33], Kailash  vs  Nankhu [(2005)4 SCC 480] , Salem advocate Bar Association VS Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344] on the one hand and  J J Merchan  & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635)] and NIA Vs 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 decision 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     -९- 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. Since the question that falls for determination here often arises before the Consumer Fora and Commissions all over the country it will be more appropriate if the conflict is resolved by an authoritative judgement. Further since the conflict is between Benches comprising three Judges we deem it fit to refer these appeals to a five - Judge Bench to resolve the conflict once and for all. While we do so we are mindful of the fact that in the ordinary course a two - Judge Bench ought to make a reference to a three - Judge Bench in the first place but in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the conflict is between coordinate benches That comprising three Judges a reference to 3 Judges may not suffice"
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 405 - B Kumar - Full Document

Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi on 12 August, 2002

"there is an apparent conflict between the decision of this Court in Topline Shoes Limited  vs  Corporation Bank [(2002)6 SCC 33], Kailash  vs  Nankhu [(2005)4 SCC 480] , Salem advocate Bar Association VS Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344] on the one hand and  J J Merchan  & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635)] and NIA Vs 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 decision 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     -९- 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. Since the question that falls for determination here often arises before the Consumer Fora and Commissions all over the country it will be more appropriate if the conflict is resolved by an authoritative judgement. Further since the conflict is between Benches comprising three Judges we deem it fit to refer these appeals to a five - Judge Bench to resolve the conflict once and for all. While we do so we are mindful of the fact that in the ordinary course a two - Judge Bench ought to make a reference to a three - Judge Bench in the first place but in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the conflict is between coordinate benches That comprising three Judges a reference to 3 Judges may not suffice"
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 565 - Full Document

Marine Container Services South Pvt. ... vs Go Go Garments on 23 January, 1998

In Maine Container Services South Pvt Ltd v Go Garments 1998 (3) SCC 247 it has been held that the Contract Act applies to all litigants before the Commissioner under the Consumers Protection Act. Passengers traveling in train suffering injuries and loss of Jewelry as a result of assault by unruly crowd are eligible for filing of complaint before State Commission is maintainable notwithstanding the provisions of sections 100 and 103 of Railways Act, 1889. The Consumer   -५- Protection Act therefore gives the consumer an additional remedy besides those which may be available under other existing laws. Existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement is no bar to the entertainment of complaint by the Redressal Agency as the remedy under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law. However, the Consumer Forums under the Act have not taken over the jurisdiction of civil Courts. If the dispute between the parties is pending in Civil Court no Consumer Forum will adjudicate the dispute. Similarly if evidence be laid by the parties to the dispute is voluminous or complicated the parties will be referred to the appropriate Civil Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 168 - Full Document
1   2 Next