Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

that the Learned District Forum without considering all these facts, had wrongly convicted appellant accused under sec.27 of the Consumer Protection

that the Learned District Forum without considering all these facts, had wrongly convicted appellant accused under sec.27 of the Consumer Protection

same. Learned District Forum has also not considered the same and wrongly convicted the appellant accused assuming that he is responsible for non-compliance ... Learned District Forum without considering all 5 these facts, had wrongly convicted appellant accused under sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for wilful

treatment with the opposite party's Siddha Vaithiyasalai and due to wrong treatment alleged to have been given subsequently while taking treatment with Allopathy ... fabricated materials in the police case before the Magistrate and wrongly convicted in the Criminal Court against which the appeal is pending before

want to extract money from applicant/appellant in a wrongful manner. The appellant/applicant was convicted in Execution Application dated 03.08.2017 by the State Commission

basis of the wrong information submitted by the bank officials and the complainant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ... Therefore the respondent bank has committed deficiency in service while giving wrong information to Hans Raj. Hence the complaint for recovery of Rs.50 lakhs

parentage and place of residence of the convict driver was same as contained in his driving license, wrong mention thereof in criminal proceedings attributed

amount of Rs.30,52,000/- has been paid; this Commission has wrongly framed an issue as to 'whether the JD is required ... vide order dated 27.01.2020, the Managing Director of JD No.1 was convicted under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and sentenced to imprisonment

facts as he did not disclose that he was held guilty and convicted in a criminal case registered under Sections ... mentioned in the insurance policy. In fact, the life assured had given wrong information at the time of submitting the proposal form which amounts

terms i.e. para 5.1.(4) of the application was inadvertently wrongly mentioned by the Financial Advisor, which omission in neither material nor pertaining ... seen that it is admitted facts of the parties that wrong information has been supplied in the clause 5.1(4) of the application form submitted