Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi on 12 August, 2002
In Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Srinath
Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635, Para 12
Page 642, the Apex court was pleased to hold,
It was next contended that such
complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires
to be rejected
because the Act, for summary or
speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is
provided. Therefore, merely because it
is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial, would
hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable, long
drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the
litigant to harass the aggrieved other
side, is not necessary. It should be
kept in mind that legislature has
provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy
to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would
also be totally wrong assumption that
because summary trial
is provided, justice cannot be done,
when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or
decided. The Act provides sufficient
safeguards.
Sat Pal Mohindra vs Surindra Timber Stores on 12 April, 1999
In Sat Pal Mohindra Vs. Surinder Timber Shre,
1999 (5) SCC 696, it was held that Suit and Consumer case can go
together. Moreover, the Honble High
Court was dealing with a criminal case and not with a civil case. The criminal and civil liabilities are
different. There lies no rub in
proceeding against the wrong doer, under
both these laws, separately.
A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969
27. Learned counsel argued that verification
is not correct and it appears that the witnesses did not have personal knowledge. He has invited our
attention towards the authority reported
in A.K.K.
Nambiar Vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 652, wherein it was held:-
Abdul Rashid vs Calcutta Municipal Corporation And ... on 3 April, 1989
They are to show, as to where the child got vanished. At best,
this is a case of kidnapping and
the police did not find any case against them.
No criminal culpability was found against the OP1. Counsel for OP1 has placed reliance on Abdul
Rashid Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, AIR 1990 Calcutta 37,
wherein it was held:
Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2005
A) In Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, Page 1388, Para 27,
wherein the Honble Apex court has held,
as under:-
V. Kishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr on 8 March, 2010
B) In V.Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 513, at page 532, Para 50, it was
held by the Honble Apex court that :
Malay Kumar Ganguly vs Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors on 7 August, 2009
40. We find force
in this argument in a measure. The
learned counsel for the Complainants, on the other hand, cited an authority
reported in Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr.Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC
221, wherein the Honble Apex Court held:
Rubi(Chandra) Dutta vs M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 18 March, 2011
41. The counsel
for the complainants has also cited Ruby (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, Page 275, Para 26, wherein the
Honble Apex has held: