Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)
Himanshu Mishra vs Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. on 18 September, 2017 cites

Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-Operative vs M. Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors on 11 December, 2003

"We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Learned Counsel.  In our opinion, the decision of the State Commission being based on the authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also on the decision dated 02.05.2016, rendered by this Bench in the case of  Lt. Col. Anil Raj & Ors. Vs.  M/s Unitech Limited & Ors. in CC No. 346/2013, in which we have held that notwithstanding the amendments in the Arbitration Act, the reasoning and ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of  Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs.  M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 561 - S V Patil - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 December, 2015

In view of above proposition of law laid down by the Five Judges Bench in  Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr.`s and also Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. case (supra), it is not open to the Bench of co-equal strength to give contrary findings, to the view already expressed by a Former Bench of same strength.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 299 - A R Dave - Full Document

Kavit Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate ... on 12 February, 2015

9.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. It may be stated here that the mere objection of the Opposite Parties that since the complainants are resident of Shimla, which is much less populated than Mohali, as such, they purchased the unit for speculation/commercial purposes, does not carry any weight and is liable to be rejected. It has been mentioned by the complainants, in para no.1 of their complaint that they applied for an apartment measuring 1750 sq. ft. for their family and personal use. Not only this, the complainants also mentioned in para No.4 of their rejoinder that the apartment was purchased exclusively for family and residential purposes. Even otherwise, the mere fact that it was a residential unit, which was allotted, in favour of the complainants, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by the complainants. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainants are property dealers. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the  Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion i.e. simply saying that the  complainants purchased the property for speculation purposes, as such, they did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. Further, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 1050 - Full Document

Mrs. Anjani Dass vs Dlf Universal Ltd. on 19 July, 2017

6.           The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. This question has already been elaborately dealt with by this Commission in case titled Mrs.Anjani Dass Vs. DLF Universal Limited, Complaint Case No.295 of 2017, decided on 19.07.2017. Para No.12 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, is extracted hereunder:-
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 28 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next