LawMirror.com

Results of 2

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 5361-5370 of 8312 Results

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 10, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Stay of suit u/s 10 CPC - Court can still decide application U.O.39.Rr.1 & 2 CPC...........

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rule 2-B -(As in P&H) - L.R's - Duty to implead - Is that of the L.R's of the deceased to get themselves impleaded and not of the person who is dominus litus - In case L.R's do not get themselves impleaded in the suit then later on they cannot contended that decree is not executable against them...........

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2, Contract Act, 1872, Section 27, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 42 -- Contract of service - Negative stipulation - As per terms of employment employee was not to disclose trade secrets to others and not to compete with employer for a period of five years after expiry of term of service - Employee resigning voluntarily..........

NATIONAL DELHI CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) -- Contract Act, 1872. Sections 73 and 72 - Kisan Vikas Patras - Missing person - Nomination - Interest - Payment of - Since the KVPs had been retained by the petitioners, even in the absence of agreement, there is an obligation arising out of a situation resembling a contract covered by the provisions of second part of..........

THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) -- Insurance Act, 1938, Section 45 - Insurance claim - Repudiation - Ground that deceased was having some serious disease and was getting regular treatment from Government Hospital which he fraudulently concealed and not disclosed in proposal form - No cogent evidence produced on file to prove the same - Death within ten days..........

THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) -- Travel agent - Air ticket - Purchase of for complainant-appellants on confessional basis - Intimation not given that group had to return together - Appellants had to cut short their journey, without fulfilling their purpose of visit, which caused them much mental harassment and agony - Held that there was..........

THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) -- Travel agent - Air ticket - Purchase of for complainant-appellants on confessional basis - Intimation not given that group had to return together - Appellants had to cut short their journey, without fulfilling their purpose of visit, which caused them much mental harassment and agony - Held that there was..........

NATIONAL DELHI CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) -- Vehicle finance - Hire Purchase Agreement - Non-payment of due instalments - Re-possession of vehicle as per the terms of the agreement - it does not amount to deficiency in service...........

DELHI DELHI CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) -- Consumer -Commercial purpose - Seeds - Purchased by respondent to raise crop in his agricultural land for his livelihood - The contention of the appellant that respondent was not a consumer because he had purchased seeds for commercial purpose repelled - Held that had the respondent purchased the seeds for further sale of..........

DELHI DELHI CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) -- Consumer -Commercial purpose - Seeds - Purchased by respondent to raise crop in his agricultural land for his livelihood - The contention of the appellant that respondent was not a consumer because he had purchased seeds for commercial purpose repelled - Held that had the respondent purchased the seeds for further sale of..........

Showing : 5361-5370 of 8312 Results