Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Jaswinder Singh S/O Karnail Singh vs Bambhia Pesticides, Hybrid Foundation ... on 9 November, 2009
cites
India Seed House vs Ramjilal Sharma And Anr. on 9 May, 2008
47. Reference can also be made to another judgment of the Hon'ble National
Commission reported as "INDIA SEED HOUSE v. RAMJILAL SHARMA & ANR."
III(2008) CPJ 96 (NC) in which it was held as under:-
National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. vs Pv Krishna Reddy on 18 November, 2008
48. Similar submission was advanced before the Hon'ble National Commission
in the judgment reported as "National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. P.V.Krishna Reddy and
others, 2009 CTJ 522 (CP) (NCDRC)" and it was held by the Hon'ble National
Commission as under: -
M/S Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd vs Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors on 18 August, 1998
"21. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers-
respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and analysis
by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the
Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.
Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & others 1998 CTJ 561
(SC) (CP) = (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g),
H.N. Shankara Shastri v. Asstt. Director of Agriculture,
Karnataka, (2004) 6 SCC 230 (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The
Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation
Ltd. v. Seelam Rama Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see
paragraph 9) and M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra)."
H.N. Shankara Shastry vs The Asstt. Director Of Agriculture, ... on 6 May, 2004
"21. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers-
respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and analysis
by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the
Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.
Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & others 1998 CTJ 561
(SC) (CP) = (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g),
H.N. Shankara Shastri v. Asstt. Director of Agriculture,
Karnataka, (2004) 6 SCC 230 (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The
Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation
Ltd. v. Seelam Rama Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see
paragraph 9) and M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra)."
Section 13 in The Seeds Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. vs M. Madhusudan Reddy on 24 March, 2003
"21. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers-
respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and analysis
by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the
Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.
Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & others 1998 CTJ 561
(SC) (CP) = (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g),
H.N. Shankara Shastri v. Asstt. Director of Agriculture,
Karnataka, (2004) 6 SCC 230 (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The
Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation
Ltd. v. Seelam Rama Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see
paragraph 9) and M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra)."
Section 13 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
1