Showing : 2821-2830 of 8177 Results

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 23, Rule 1(5), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section , Order 1, Rule 10(2)-- Joint suit - Withdrawal from - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by two plaintiffs - Withdrawal of suit by one of the two plaintiffs without consent of other - Share which forms subject-matter of suit are in individual name of two plaintiffs but they joined in one suit even..........
THE PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-- Electricity supply - Electricity theft - Tampering of meter - Sales Regulations, Regulation 70.5 - Testing of meter - M.E. Lab report as per which all the ME seals (seal clam) were tampered with - Meter was tested on the test bench and it was found that the meter is sticky and was not running..........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 357-- Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal - Suspension of sentence - Payment of compensation amount - Held, S.357(2) indicates that even if compensation amount is deposited, payment cannot be made to victim before decision of appeal - It is not always necessary to insist for payment of..........
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-- Housing - Flat allotment - Cancellation of flat of allottee as she was a defaulter and failed to get the sale deed executed within the stipulated time - Construction company cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service on its part - Since it had been within its right cancelled the allotment..........
THE PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Janta Personal Accident Policy-- Insurance claim - Repudiation - Ground that the respondent was suffering from hypertension which led to the ailment and not due to any accident as no FIR was lodged of the alleged accident - Held that even if the respondent had not got FIR or DDR registered for the roadside accidents, still it..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Rule 2 2(b)-- Criminal proceedings - Retiral benefits - Withholding of - Under Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules - Criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while he was in service - Offences unrelated to the service of the petitioner - Neither there is any claim of causing loss to the Government nor..........
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-- Housing - Flat allotment - Cancellation of flat of allottee as she was a defaulter and failed to get the sale deed executed within the stipulated time - Construction company cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service on its part - Since it had been within its right cancelled the allotment..........
THE PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(b), 2(1)(m), 2(1)(f)-- Complaint maintainability - Beneficiary - Aggrieved person - Defective paint - Complaint filed by the user of the house and not filed by the owner of the house - Complaint held to be maintainable - Even the beneficiary can file complaint The conduct of the appellant in sending the representative..........
THE PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 7-- B - Telegraph Rules, Rule 443 - Mobile connection - Request for restoration - Dispute as to - Complaint maintainability - In the case of private mobile service provider the judgment of M. Krishnan's case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable and it can be resolved only by taking recourse to..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 22(2), 13(2)(i) 3rd-- - Landlord claimed and received rent for 50 months instead of 38 months contrary to S.13(2)(i) 3rd Proviso - Held, violations of S.13(2)(i) 3rd Proviso is no offence in terms of S.22 of the Act - Hence not punishable...........

Showing : 2821-2830 of 8177 Results