Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 19 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Now, pursuant to the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission, the third respondent is taking steps to recover the amounts in accordance with the award. Since the petitioner remained ex parte before the District Forum, the question of initial want of jurisdiction could not be raised. The State Commission also did not go into the issue. Since the District Forum totally lacks jurisdiction, the award passed by the same is a nullity and hence the validity of the same can be questioned under article 226 of the Constitution of India in this writ proceeding. Even though the order of the District Forum has been confirmed by the State Commission, the State Commission being a Tribunal, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. He also referred to the judgment reported in Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan, .
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
A.V. Georgekutty vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 10 March, 1993
In the recent judgment reported in A. V. Georgekutty v. State of Kerala, , it has been held as follows :
First Income-Tax Officer, Salem vs M/S. Short Brothers (P) Ltd on 15 December, 1965
In this connection reference is to be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in First ITO v. Short Bros. (P.) Ltd. . In that case, the Supreme Court observed while dealing with the question of issue of writ of prohibition that issuance of a writ of prohibition is discretionary with the High Court, particularly when the petitioner has an alternative remedy which is adequate and efficacious.