Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
S.D.K.L., Dav Centenary Senior ... vs Mehar Soft Technologies on 7 September, 2015 cites

Sanjay D. Ghodawat vs R.R.B. Energy Ltd. on 17 December, 2009

9. The District Forum, before recording the finding that the complainant does not qualify to be a "consumer", recorded the finding on merits that nothing was brought on the record by the complainant for proving that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that only in order to withhold the balance amount of Rs.13,000/-, the complainant filed the complaint. Before recording the findings on merits, the District Forum was first required to record a finding, as to whether the complainant fell within the definition of "consumer"? While recording the finding that the complainant is not a consumer, it observed that the services of First Appeal No.408 of 2012 7 the opposite party cannot be construed as "services" not for commercial purpose and the order placed by the complainant is basically intended to generate profit and further would only fall within the ambit of "commercial purpose". It relied upon the judgments reported in 2011 (1) CLT 294, Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2008 titled as "Sanjay D. Ghodawat Vs. R.R.B. Energy Ltd.; Consumer Complaint No.38 of 2009 titled as "Radhe Enterprises Vs. Suzion Energy Ltd."; and First Appeal No.218 of 2004 against order dated 8.8.2003 in complaint No.79/98 of Hon'ble State Commission Andhra Pradesh titled as "Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Birla Technologies Ltd.". Neither the facts of those cases were discussed, nor it was mentioned as to how the ratio of those judgments applies to the facts of the present case. Only the head note of one of the judgments was reproduced. For want of complete particulars, it was not possible for us to lay our hands on those judgments.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 16 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Amar Enterprises vs Sunrich Energy Pvt Ltd on 13 August, 2009

9. The District Forum, before recording the finding that the complainant does not qualify to be a "consumer", recorded the finding on merits that nothing was brought on the record by the complainant for proving that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that only in order to withhold the balance amount of Rs.13,000/-, the complainant filed the complaint. Before recording the findings on merits, the District Forum was first required to record a finding, as to whether the complainant fell within the definition of "consumer"? While recording the finding that the complainant is not a consumer, it observed that the services of First Appeal No.408 of 2012 7 the opposite party cannot be construed as "services" not for commercial purpose and the order placed by the complainant is basically intended to generate profit and further would only fall within the ambit of "commercial purpose". It relied upon the judgments reported in 2011 (1) CLT 294, Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2008 titled as "Sanjay D. Ghodawat Vs. R.R.B. Energy Ltd.; Consumer Complaint No.38 of 2009 titled as "Radhe Enterprises Vs. Suzion Energy Ltd."; and First Appeal No.218 of 2004 against order dated 8.8.2003 in complaint No.79/98 of Hon'ble State Commission Andhra Pradesh titled as "Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Birla Technologies Ltd.". Neither the facts of those cases were discussed, nor it was mentioned as to how the ratio of those judgments applies to the facts of the present case. Only the head note of one of the judgments was reproduced. For want of complete particulars, it was not possible for us to lay our hands on those judgments.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - A J Gunjal - Full Document

Delhi Public School vs The Managing Director/Chairman, Uttar ... on 29 October, 2014

It becomes very much clear from the above said judgment that where the system is purchased for the purpose of education and research, it cannot be said to be purchased for commercial purpose. This very judgment was followed by the Hon'ble National Commission in its recent judgment given in case Delhi Public School Vs. The M.D., Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others (2015 (1) CLT 103). In that case, the complainant was running an educational institution and it obtained an electric connection from the opposite party. The opposite party took up the defence that the electric connection had been obtained for commercial purpose and, as such, the complainant was not a consumer and the complaint filed by it under the Act was not maintainable. It was held therein that the electric connection obtained by the complainant does not fall within the purview of the electric connection for commercial purpose. If educational institution purchases equipment for use by the students, purchase of equipment cannot be said to be commercial, even if institution charges some amount for maintenance of equipment. The complainant was not generating anything by the use of electric connection, but the electricity connection had been taken only for the purpose of electrification of the school premises and for other First Appeal No.408 of 2012 9 facilities to the students and in such circumstances, merely because it is non-domestic connection, it cannot be said that the electric connection falls within the purview of the connection for commercial purpose.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1