Immigration Services -- Consultancy charges - Refund of fees paid - OPs have received the refund amount of Rs. 23,800/ - from New Zealand Immigration Service but not refunded to the petitioner - Order of the State Commission upsetting the order of District Forum liable to be set aside - Order of the District Forum allowing relief to the petitioner confirmed -..........
Education -- Admission - Fee refund - Admission for course 2005-2006 in OP No.1 Institute which failed to issue registration card and also did not provide hostel mess facility - Further discovered by the respondent-complainant that the Institute had neither any affiliation nor recommendation of any University or Government - Petitioner who is District Employment Officer..........
Education -- Admission - Fee refund - Admission for course 2005 - 2006 in OP No.1 Institute which failed to issue registration card and also did not provide hostel mess facility - Further discovered by the respondent - complainant that the Institute had neither any affiliation nor recommendation of any University or Government - Petitioner who is District Employment..........
Agreement to sell -- Suit for specific performance - Relief of specific performance declined - Court cannot order subsequent purchaser to refund money payable to plaintiff...........
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b), 27 -- Execution of order - Revision against - No relief was sought by the Respondent for refund of the development charges - Petitioner had only asked for the refund of the security deposit of Rs.20,100 along with interest which has already been refunded to the respondent - Fora below have erred in directing the petitioner to..........
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b), 27 -- Execution of order - Revision against - No relief was sought by the Respondent for refund of the development charges - Petitioner had only asked for the refund of the security deposit of Rs. 20,100 along with interest which has already been refunded to the respondent - Fora below have erred in directing the petitioner to..........
Contract of Insurance -- Petitioner-Insurance Company expressed willingness to accept Rs.15 lakh as premium for providing insurance coverage under a Scheme to all farmers, farm labourers and Mandi workers in the State of Punjab - Two days before the commencement of the Insurance policy enhanced premium demanded by clarifying the reasons for demanding a much higher premium..........
Contract of Insurance -- Petitioner - Insurance Company expressed willingness to accept Rs. 15 lakh as premium for providing insurance coverage under a Scheme to all farmers, farm labourers and Mandi workers in the State of Punjab - Two days before the commencement of the Insurance policy enhanced premium demanded by clarifying the reasons for demanding a much higher..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 89, 16, 20, 21, Order 23, Rule 3 - - Refund of entire court fee - Entitlement - Held, for refund of court fee as provided u/s 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the matter should have been referred to any of the modes of settlement u/s 89 of CPC - If the matter is settled between the parties, otherwise than on a reference u/s 89 of CPC,..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 89, Order 23, Rule 3, Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 16, Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, Section 69 - - Refund of court fee - Whether plaintiff who paid full court fee is entitled to get refund of entire amount of court fee on settlement of disputes between parties and on filing compromise petition u/R.3 of O.23 CPC and..........
