the court may be enabled to make a complete decree between the parties [and] prevent future litigation by taking away the necessity of a multiplicity

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "the court may be enabled to make a complete decree between the parties [and] prevent future litigation by taking away the necessity of a multiplicity"

Transcription

1 CLASS ACTION SUITS UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 Sushma Sosha Philip Introduction: Class Action suits originated as a means of overcoming the impracticalities imposed by a large group of plaintiffs/petitioners in a case and to reduce multiplicity in litigation. The Cambridge dictionary defines class action as a legal action (=a case that is decided in a law court) that is organized by a group of people who all have the same legal problem. 1 These suits also known as multi-district litigation and mass tort litigation are filed in cases of consumer frauds, securities frauds, misconduct in corporate or employment related practices or in cases where injuries have been caused due to the use of defective products, medical drugs motor vehicles, etc. Class Action Suits in employment-related matters may be filed where the employees have suffered from discrimination by age, gender or race, etc. These multiparty suits can also be made in cases of a massive accident where people have suffered widespread personal injuries due to a defective product. While class action suits have met with much success in many countries and have served to ensure that justice is done for large groups of complainants, these suits are only gradually gaining popularity in India and there are various ambiguities regarding the maintainability of such class action complaints. Class Action suits can be filed under various regulations in India such as Section 91, Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 12 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, Section 245 of the Companies Act 2013 Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India etc. Class-action suits An Evolution: While class action suits are often considered to be a characteristic of the U.S legal system, such suits actually originated in England in the 13 th century and went by the nomenclature group litigation. This means of litigation was devised to overcome the hardships presented by poor communication and transport in the Middle Ages. These cases generally involved an action that affected a community as a whole and a representative of such community would present the case before a court. This practice evolved in the Equity courts of the 17 th Century to involve the granting of bills of peace. 2 Bills of peace were often heard in the Courts of Equity when the number of litigants were so large that a joinder of claims was impractical and very often, impossible. In such cases parties named in the suit had to possess a joint interest or grievance and a judgment, if pronounced, would be binding on all parties named, whether they were present in the court or not. This sort of group litigation fell from popularity towards the end of the 1800s in England. However, at around the same time, Justice Joseph Story of the US Supreme Court began advocating this method of litigation in the United States. 3 In West v. Randall, 4 he defended his reasons for supporting bills of peace by stating that "all persons materially interested, either as plaintiffs or defendants in the subject matter of a bill ought to be made parties to the suit, however numerous they may be. The reason is that Junior Associate-Corporate, Altacit Global 1 Class action, Cambridge Dictionary (2017), available at (last visited ) 2 Class action, The Free Legal Dictionary, available at (last visited ) 3 Ibid F. Cas. 718 (R.I. 1820)

2 the court may be enabled to make a complete decree between the parties [and] prevent future litigation by taking away the necessity of a multiplicity of suits." Initially, in the United States of America, such class action suits were instituted under Federal Equity Rule 48 only in matters of equity and not where there were monetary damages involved. In the course of time, Federal Equity Rule 48 was replaced by Federal Equity Rule 38 which did not mandate that all individual parties in such group litigations be present for the hearing in court. The concept further evolved with the introduction of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938 which allowed for the hearing of cases involving matters of equity as class actions, even where monetary damages were claimed. Consumer Complaints as Class Action Suits in India: The Consumer Protection Act was enacted in India in It provides legal backing for the protection of consumer rights in India. The primary objective of this legislation is to protect the interests of consumers as has clearly been stated in its preamble. Class action litigation is clear evidence of the fact that the provisions of the Consumer Act have been enacted for the main purpose of safeguarding Consumers as it allows for representative filing of complaints as well as the redressal of the complaint of a group which serves to ease the financial burdens of, and time invested in litigation, rather than forcing complainants to engage in multiple litigations having varying outcomes. S. 12 (1) (c) and (d) of the Consumers Act in India: S. 12(1) (c) and S. 12(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provide a clear statutory backing for the institution of class action suits in India. Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 details out the manner in which a complaint is to be filed before the District Consumer Forum. Section 12(1) (c) 5 reads as follows; 12 (1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by; (c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; It is clear from a plain reading of this section that consumer complaints may be filed before the District Consumer Forum by representatives of and on behalf of a group of consumers having the same interest, provided the permission of such Forum is obtained in this regard. Furthermore, S. 12 (1) (d) of the Act reads as follows; 12 (1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by; (d) the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, either in its individual capacity or as a representative of interests of the consumers in general. This section empowers the Government of India to file complaints in a representative capacity in the interest of consumers as a class. 5 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, available at (last visited )

3 In 2015, the Government of India instituted a class action suit under Section 12(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, in the NCDRC against Nestle alleging that the company had been indulging in unfair trade practices. 6 This case did not reach a conclusion as the proceedings were stayed by the Supreme Court. 7 In 2016, the question of maintainability of class action complaints instituted under S.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was discussed and clarified by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its landmark decision in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 8 Significance of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd: While the case filed by the Government of India against Nestle evidences the fact that representative complaints are filed in the National Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission (NCDRC), Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 9 served to clarify the position regarding the maintainability of complaints filed by a group of individuals under 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer s Act. This was a landmark decision, in that it allows consumers with a common grievance or seeking the same relief to directly approach the NCDRC as a group irrespective of the cause of action, provided that the conditions placed regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum are met. Though this decision was with regard to complaints directed at builders and individuals in the construction industry, there is no bar to its application in consumer cases involving complaints regarding other industries as well. 10 Case Brief: The Complainant in this case had booked an apartment owned by Respondent No. 1. This allotment was however cancelled due to non-payment of the balance sale consideration. The complainant, aggrieved by this action of the respondent approached the District Consumer Forum. The complaint was, however dismissed on the grounds that such Forum did not have the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the subject matter of the claim i.e., the apartment was valued at Rs. 46,02,653/-. The complainant then approached the State Commission through a fresh complaint. However, the State Commission stated that the grievance pertained to a deficiency in services and thus the value of the flat should not have been taken into account to when computing the pecuniary jurisdiction. Following from this reasoning, the State Commission noted that the Complainant had claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation and dismissed the complaint on this ground. The Complainant, aggrieved by this dismissal approached the National Commission. The National Commission referred the questions raised in this complaint to larger Benches of the Commission. The issue of maintainability of a complaint under 12(1)(c) of the Consumers Act, which is the subject matter of this article, was specifically dealt with in this case. The following broad guidelines for filing a S. 12(1)(c) complaint in the NCDRC may be inferred from the observation of the Bench of the National Commission regarding the maintainability of such complaint in this case; Commonality of grievance/ relief: The Bench, relying on the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v. T.N. Ganapathy 11 stated that there must be a commonality in the grievance or interest rather than the 6 Union of India v. Nestle India Limited, Consumer Complaint No. 870 of SC stays class suit proceedings against Nestle, THE TIMES OF INDIA, (Dec. 17, 2015), (last visited ) 8 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, Consumer Case No. 97 of Ibid. 10 Manash Gohain, Builders: NCDRC to take up direct pleas, THE TIMES OF INDIA, (Oct. 13, 2016), visited ) 11 Civil Appeal No of 1983 para 7

4 cause of action. In the above-mentioned case, the Supreme Court, regarding the application of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure stated in no uncertain terms that; The condition necessary for application of the provisions is that the persons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest. In other words either the interest must be common or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get redressed. If the grievances or the interest of the complainants are identical, as is the relief claimed by them, then Order I Rule 8 will apply to such consumer complaint by virtue of S. 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act. Once this commonality of grievance or interest is established, a complaint may be filed under S. 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainants with the permission of the relevant Bench of the Commission. However, such a complaint shall not be deemed to have been filed on behalf of consumers with a common interest or grievance who have already filed complaints individually regarding the same. 12 Pecuniary Jurisdiction for complaints under S.12(c) instituted in the NCDRC: Addressing the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as laid down in S. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Bench stated that complaints wherein the aggregate of the value of the goods/services and the compensation (with any interest due) 13 claimed by all the complainants in toto exceeded Rs. 1 crore, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. If such aggregate value is between Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 1 crore, the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear such complaint will vest in the State Commission. Thus, the value of the goods/services and compensation claimed by each individual complainant is irrelevant when adjudging whether any Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction. Furthermore, as the Consumer Protection Act does not provide for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction based on the cost of curing the defects of the deficient goods/services, the cost of curing such defects also remains irrelevant while computing pecuniary jurisdiction. Restrictions vis-à-vis the definition of consumer under S. 2(1)(d) A restriction has been placed on who may file a complaint under S. 12(1)(c). The Hon ble Bench in this case clarified the point that only those persons who fall within the definition of consumer as provided for in S. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act may file a complaint under S.12(1)(c) of the Act. Thus no person who is not a consumer as envisaged by the above-mentioned provision may file a complaint under S. 12(1)(c) of the Act, or be amongst those people on whose behalf such complaint is filed. This restriction extends to Firms, Societies, Associations or a group of Co-operative Societies unless such Firms, Societies, Associations or group of Co-operative Societies fall within the scope of S. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Multiplicity of claims under S.12(c) for the same grievance: The Hon ble Bench in this case delved into the legislative intent behind introducing a provision such as S. 12(1)(c) in the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon ble Bench observed; The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate the decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested, without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint, it is necessary that such a complaint is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest. 12 Saba, Class action suits held maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, THE SCC ONLINE BLOG, (Oct. 27, 2016), visited ) 13 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004)5 SCC 65

5 The Bench unequivocally held that in cases where permission to institute a class action complaint under S. 12 (1)(c) of the Act has been given, complainants having the same interest cannot institute individual complaints under this section. The only recourse available to such complainants on dismissal of their complaint is to join as a party to the previously instituted class action suit. This is so as to prevent multiplicity of litigation as is object of class action suits. This restriction does not apply to individual complaints filed under S. 12 (1)(c) of the Act by complainants having the same interest, before the class action suit has been permitted and instituted before the Commission. However, such individual complainants also have the right to withdraw their previously instituted complaint and join as a party to the class action suit. Public Notice The Bench in this decision added a note of caution for subsequent Benches of the Commission hearing such class action suits as decisions rendered in suits of this nature are binding on all consumers on whose behalf and for whose benefit the complaint was made, irrespective of whether they chose to be party to the complaint or not. Thus, it is for the Benches of the Commission to exercise care while admitting and hearing such complaint. Before permission is given by the Bench for hearing a complaint of this nature, the opposite party must be given adequate opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Bench mandated that once the complaint has been admitted, it is the duty of such Bench to either give individual notices to all those consumers on whose behalf and for whose benefit the complaint was instituted or give adequate public notice of the institution of such complaint. Such notice must disclose the subject matter of the complaint, the class of persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint has been instituted, the common grievance, the deficiency in services and the relief claimed. Conclusion Through its decision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 14 the NCDRC has effectively clarified its position regarding the maintainability of a class action complaint under S. 12(1)(c). The clarifications provided by this decision regarding the aspects such as commonality of interest, pecuniary jurisdiction, and public notice will serve as an encouragement to consumers to file more such class action suits. However, the judiciary has ensured that a balance is maintained by placing restrictions on who may file such a complaint under S.12(1)(c), and laid down conditions such as the preliminary requirement to obtain permission from the Commission before which such a complaint is instituted which will serve to prevent frivolous complaints. The NCDRC has also noted and upheld the legislative intent behind the concept of class action suits i.e., to prevent multiple litigations on the same complaint. The Preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that it is an Act to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers. The legislative backing for the institution of class actions suits under S. 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and the clarification regarding the condition for maintainability of class action suits in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 15 is a move to ensure that the object of the Act as mentioned in the Preamble is being upheld. While the purpose of literature on this subject is to educate consumers regarding their rights, as Phil McGraw said Awareness without action is worthless. It remains to be seen whether Indian consumers will fully exploit this tool for redressal that has been made available to them. 14 Supra note 8 15 Supra note 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS. 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5802 OF 2018 RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS. Appellants VERSUS DWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.... Respondents

More information

Consumer Protection Bill, 2015

Consumer Protection Bill, 2015 www.swaniti.in Consumer Protection Bill, 2015 India is predicted to be amongst the fastest growing markets. By 2020, India is projected to be the world s third largest middle class consumer market behind

More information

II (2013) CPJ 10A (NC) (CN) NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI Hon ble Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member PARMOD KUMAR

II (2013) CPJ 10A (NC) (CN) NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI Hon ble Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member PARMOD KUMAR II (2013) CPJ 10A (NC) (CN) NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI Hon ble Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member PARMOD KUMAR MALIK Petitioner versus HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2018 MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION (Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2018 Revenue Bar Association New No. 115

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8444/2011 Date of Decision: 29 th September, 2015 REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY... Petitioner Through Mr.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 7335 of 2008 CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, H.U.D.A. & ANR. SHAKUNTLA DEVI Versus J U D G M E N T... Appellant(s).Respondent(s)

More information

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs.

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No. 16809/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1830/2010 IA No. 16756/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

More information

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 16.07.2012 in First Appeal No. 201/2012 of the State Commission U.T., Chandigarh) WITH

More information

Impounding of A Passport - Ambiguity of Applicable Laws Vis. a Vis. Defaulter s Delight

Impounding of A Passport - Ambiguity of Applicable Laws Vis. a Vis. Defaulter s Delight Impounding of A Passport - Ambiguity of Applicable Laws Vis. a Vis. Defaulter s Delight By Jayashree Shukla Dasgupta, Partner and Swati Sharma, Associate Personal liberty is the liberty of an individual

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA(OS) No. 70/2008. Reserved on : December 12th, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA(OS) No. 70/2008. Reserved on : December 12th, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA(OS) No. 70/2008 Reserved on : December 12th, 2008 Date of Decision : December 19th, 2008 Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Ors.... Appellants

More information

PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9844-9846 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition

More information

A study on the working of Customer disputes redressal agencies

A study on the working of Customer disputes redressal agencies 2014; 1(1): 163-167 ISSN Print: 2394-7500 ISSN Online: 2394-5869 Impact Factor: 3.4 IJAR 2014; 1(1): 163-167 www.allresearchjournal.com Received: 20-10-2014 Accepted: 25-11-2014 Designation Is Assistant

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2019 MANTRI CASTLES PVT. LTD & ANR. WITH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2019 MANTRI CASTLES PVT. LTD & ANR. WITH 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2019 R V PRASANNAKUMAAR & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS MANTRI CASTLES PVT. LTD & ANR. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL

More information

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, MANAGEMENT AND ALLIED SCIENCES (IJBMAS) A Peer Reviewed International Research Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, MANAGEMENT AND ALLIED SCIENCES (IJBMAS) A Peer Reviewed International Research Journal RESEARCH ARTICLE Vol.4.Issue.4.2017 Oct-Dec INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, MANAGEMENT AND ALLIED SCIENCES (IJBMAS) A Peer Reviewed International Research Journal FUNCTIONING OF DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL

More information

Manisha Chhatre vs The Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism... on 20 March, 2003

Manisha Chhatre vs The Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism... on 20 March, 2003 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Manisha Chhatre vs The Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism... on 20 March, 2003 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

More information

Atyant Pichhara Barg Chhatra Sangh & Another Vs Jharkhand State Vaishya Federation & Others Civil

Atyant Pichhara Barg Chhatra Sangh & Another Vs Jharkhand State Vaishya Federation & Others Civil Atyant Pichhara Barg Chhatra Sangh & Another Vs Jharkhand State Vaishya Federation & Others Civil Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.:- Leave granted. CASE NUMBER Appeal No. 3430 of 2006 EQUIVALENT CITATION 2006-(007)-JT-0514-SC

More information

THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010: AN OVERVIEW

THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010: AN OVERVIEW 2011] 99 THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010: AN OVERVIEW Background Aruna B Venkat* It is a matter of common knowledge that the higher judiciary in India is overburdened with a large backlog of cases.

More information

SESSION 7: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES. Public Interest Litigation

SESSION 7: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES. Public Interest Litigation SESSION 7: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES Public Interest Litigation 1. A predominant part of the existing environmental law has developed in India through careful judicial thinking

More information

M/S. SAIPEM TRIUNE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Plaintiff. - versus - INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD.

M/S. SAIPEM TRIUNE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Plaintiff. - versus - INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment Reserved on: January 07, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: January 10, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2340/2008 & I.A. No.

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

Centre for Child and the Law National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Judicial Decisions Relevant to Human Rights Institutions (Digest 1)

Centre for Child and the Law National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Judicial Decisions Relevant to Human Rights Institutions (Digest 1) Judicial Decisions Relevant to Human Rights Institutions (Digest 1) The Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts have in several cases opined on the powers, jurisdiction, functions, and limitations

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) No.331/2007 % Date of decision:11 th December, 2009 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI. Petitioner Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI & ORS....

More information

COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH OUR COMMENTS IN. Appeal No.03/2013

COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH OUR COMMENTS IN. Appeal No.03/2013 SYNOPSIS OF THE ORDER DATED 17 TH January, 2014 PASSED BY THE COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH OUR COMMENTS IN Appeal No.03/2013 (Under Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2002 against the order

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 1746/2018 & C.M. No.7238/2018. versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 1746/2018 & C.M. No.7238/2018. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13.11.2018 + W.P.(C) 1746/2018 & C.M. No.7238/2018 K A NAGAMANI versus... Petitioner NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION & ANR...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY MATTER. Date of Decision : January 16, 2007 W.P.(C) 344/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY MATTER. Date of Decision : January 16, 2007 W.P.(C) 344/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY MATTER Date of Decision : January 16, 2007 W.P.(C) 344/2007 YOGESH JAIN... Petitioner Through Mr. Laliet Kumar, Advocate. versus BSES YAMUNA

More information

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 181 of 2017

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 181 of 2017 1 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Arising out of Order dated 27 th July, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai

More information

RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications

RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CASE NO.: Contempt Petition (civil) 248 of 2007 PETITIONER: Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum & Ors. RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications DATE OF JUDGMENT:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU BEFORE. THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI. CA No.969/2015 IN COP NO.84/2012 BETWEEN:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU BEFORE. THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI. CA No.969/2015 IN COP NO.84/2012 BETWEEN: 1/5 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI CA No.969/2015 IN COP NO.84/2012 BETWEEN: RASHMI THAKERIA PROMOTER-SHAREHOLDER

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Reserved on: Date of decision:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Reserved on: Date of decision: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Reserved on: 02.04.2009 Date of decision: 15.04.2009 WP (C) No.8365 of 2008 JAY THAREJA & ANR. PETITIONERS Through: Mr. C. Hari Shankar,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECRUITMENT MATTER. W.P.(C) No. 8347/2010. Date of Decision: Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECRUITMENT MATTER. W.P.(C) No. 8347/2010. Date of Decision: Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECRUITMENT MATTER W.P.(C) No. 8347/2010 Date of Decision: 10.02.2011 MRS. PRERNA Through Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate with Mr. Raunak Jain, Advocate and

More information

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 ACT NO. 13 OF 1985 [27th February, 1985.]

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 ACT NO. 13 OF 1985 [27th February, 1985.] THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 ACT NO. 13 OF 1985 [27th February, 1985.] An Act to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment

More information

Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria on 2 February, 2007

Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria on 2 February, 2007 Supreme Court of India Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria on 2 February, 2007 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 446 of 2007 PETITIONER:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014 DR. ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN Through: Mr.Suraj Rathi, Adv.... Petitioner versus STATE

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 20.04.2010 + WP (C) 13338/2009 APOLLO TYRES LTD, KOCHI Petitioner - versus UNION OF INDIA... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:-

More information

Daryao and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh: A Case Analysis

Daryao and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh: A Case Analysis 187 Daryao and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh: A Case Analysis Devanshi Dalal 1 ABSTRACT In the leading case of Daryao & Others v. State of UP & Others, the Supreme Court has placed the doctrine of Res

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CCP 55/2000, 1141/99 and 82/1999 IN CS (OS) 635/1992. Judgment delivered on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CCP 55/2000, 1141/99 and 82/1999 IN CS (OS) 635/1992. Judgment delivered on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CCP 55/2000, 1141/99 and 82/1999 IN CS (OS) 635/1992 Judgment delivered on: 5.12.2007 ANAND KUMAR DEEPAK KUMAR... Petitioners

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011 Date of decision: 1 st September, 2011 % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. Versus THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

More information

Through Mr.Prabhjit Jauhar Adv. with Ms.Anupama Kaul, Adv.

Through Mr.Prabhjit Jauhar Adv. with Ms.Anupama Kaul, Adv. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment Reserved on: February 19, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: July 01, 2013 O.M.P. No.9/2012 DARPAN KATYAL...

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8700 OF Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association W I T H

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8700 OF Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association W I T H REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8700 OF 2013 Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association..Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors...Respondents W

More information

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW J U D G M E N T

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW J U D G M E N T * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL.) No.807 of 2014 Reserved on: 09.07.2014 Pronounced on:16.09.2014 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE... Petitioner Through: Petitioner-in-person with Ms. Suman

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) Judgment reserved on February 05, 2015 Judgment delivered on February 13, 2015 M/S VARUN INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS... Appellants

More information

IJRFM Volume 2, Issue 5 (May 2012) (ISSN ) WORKING OF REDRESSAL AGENCIES ABSTRACT

IJRFM Volume 2, Issue 5 (May 2012) (ISSN ) WORKING OF REDRESSAL AGENCIES ABSTRACT WORKING OF REDRESSAL AGENCIES Dr. Prof. Hawa Singh* Monika Singh** ABSTRACT India is a vast country where a majority of consumers are poor, helpless & disorganised. It is now realised that every consumer

More information

Working and Performance of Three Tire Quasi Judiciai Mechanism for Redressal of Greviances of Consumers in India

Working and Performance of Three Tire Quasi Judiciai Mechanism for Redressal of Greviances of Consumers in India Working and Performance of Three Tire Quasi Judiciai Mechanism for Redressal of Greviances of Consumers in India Abstract Dr. Mona Arora Assistant Professor, G G D S D College,Sector 32, Chandigarh. E

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2348/2014 IN THE MATTER OF: ALKA KASANA Reserved on: 14.07.2015 Date of decision: 24.08.2015... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocate with Mr.

More information

THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2009

THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2009 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 112 of 2009 THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2009 A BILL further to amend the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and to make provisions for validation

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + Date of Decision: % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos /2015. versus.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + Date of Decision: % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos /2015. versus. $~26. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 04.12.2015 % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos.29313-14/2015 SHIV KUMAR... Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Sehgal, Mr. Om Prakash and Mr. Lalit Kumar

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28.07.2016 + CS(COMM) 644/2016 ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LIMITED versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR... Plaintiff... Defendants Advocates who

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3945 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.35786 OF 2016) SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF

More information

Promissory Estoppel : Applicability on Govt - By Divya Bhargava Tuesday, 10 November :48 - Last Updated Wednesday, 11 November :01

Promissory Estoppel : Applicability on Govt - By Divya Bhargava Tuesday, 10 November :48 - Last Updated Wednesday, 11 November :01 The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine. This principle is commonly invoked in common law in case of breach of contract or against a Government. The doctrine is popularly called as

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 MS. KRITI KOHLI Through: Mr. Rao Balvir Singh, Advocate... Appellant VERSUS

More information

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2 nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2 nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2 nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 Review Petition No. 1/2013 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 33/2013 in ORA/15/2010/PT/DEL

More information

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP 17 of 2017

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP 17 of 2017 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1. KANHAIYA LAL KANKANI CRP 17 of 2017 2. SMT. RAJ KUMARI KANKANI..Petitioners -Versus- 1. AMBIKA SUPPLY AND SERVICES

More information

AN ANALYSIS OF REVISED CLAUSE 49 OF THE LISTING AGREEMENT

AN ANALYSIS OF REVISED CLAUSE 49 OF THE LISTING AGREEMENT AN ANALYSIS OF REVISED CLAUSE 49 OF THE LISTING AGREEMENT Team : Maheshwari and Co. Introduction Good Governance in capital market has always been high on the agenda of SEBI. Corporate Governance is looked

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 265-266 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos. 1815-1816 of 2016) DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL... APPELLANT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5177 OF Vijay A. Mittal & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5177 OF Vijay A. Mittal & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5177 OF 2009 Vijay A. Mittal & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS Kulwant Rai (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. Respondent(s) J U D G M

More information

THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN SCHEME 2006 (including May 24, 2007 Amendments) NOTIFICATION. Ref.RPCD.BOS.No. 441 / / December 26, 2005

THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN SCHEME 2006 (including May 24, 2007 Amendments) NOTIFICATION. Ref.RPCD.BOS.No. 441 / / December 26, 2005 THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN SCHEME 2006 (including May 24, 2007 Amendments) NOTIFICATION Ref.RPCD.BOS.No. 441 /13.01.01/2005-06 December 26, 2005 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35A of the Banking

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF 2011 Federation of SBI Pensioners Association & Ors....... Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Ors...............

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, 2016 + CS(OS) No.2934/2011 J.C BAMFORD EXCAVATORS LIMITED & ANR... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Pravin Anand, Adv. with Ms.Vaishali

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO OF 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO OF 2017 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 15804 OF 2017 ROJER MATHEW PETITIONER VERSUS SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED AND ORS RESPONDENTS O R

More information

THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010

THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010 TO BE INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA CLAUSES THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Applicability of Act. 3. Definitions.

More information

MAC App.7/2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

MAC App.7/2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) MAC App.7/2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Md. Nur Mohammad & ors. Versus Appellants Respondents BEFORE HON

More information

MODEL FORM OF NOTICE, COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT AND REPLY MODEL FORM -1 NOTICE BEFORE FILING THE COMPLAINT

MODEL FORM OF NOTICE, COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT AND REPLY MODEL FORM -1 NOTICE BEFORE FILING THE COMPLAINT MODEL FORM OF NOTICE, COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT AND REPLY MODEL FORM -1 NOTICE BEFORE FILING THE COMPLAINT Name and address... (of the trader, dealer, firm, company, etc.)... (Complete address) IN RE: (Mention

More information

LEGISLATIVE NOTE. No. 4/LN/Ref/March 2018 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL, 2018

LEGISLATIVE NOTE. No. 4/LN/Ref/March 2018 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL, 2018 MEMBERS' REFERENCE SERVICE LARRDIS LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI LEGISLATIVE NOTE For the use of Members of Parliament NOT FOR PUBLICATION No. 4/LN/Ref/March 2018 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL, 2018 Prepared

More information

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) 6392/2007 & CM Appl.12029/2007 Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Decided on: 1st August, 2012 MOHD. ISMAIL Through:... Petitioner Mr.

More information

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF (Arising out of SLP (C) No.2798 of 2010)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF (Arising out of SLP (C) No.2798 of 2010) Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India Bench: P. Sathasivam, J. Chelameswar IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10209 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.2798

More information

REGULATION MAKING POWER OF CERC

REGULATION MAKING POWER OF CERC REGULATION MAKING POWER OF CERC Introduction Kartikey Kesarwani* Sumit Kumar** Law comes into existence not only through legislation but also by regulation and litigation. Laws from all three sources are

More information

Need for clarity as to what constitutes pre-packaged commodity

Need for clarity as to what constitutes pre-packaged commodity Need for clarity as to what constitutes pre-packaged commodity The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 2009 Act ) was passed by the Indian Parliament in order to repeal and replace

More information

Supreme Court of India. Renu Devi vs Mahendra Singh And Ors on 4 February, Bench: R.C Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar

Supreme Court of India. Renu Devi vs Mahendra Singh And Ors on 4 February, Bench: R.C Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar Supreme Court of India Renu Devi vs Mahendra Singh And Ors on 4 February, 2003 Bench: R.C Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4231 of 1999 PETITIONER: RENU DEVI RESPONDENT: MAHENDRA SINGH AND

More information

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 A K KRAIPAK A CASE ANALYSIS * AAKRITI THAKUR INTRODUCTION Natural justice has been defined as a pervasive facet of secular law making fairness a creed of life. 1 These principles have been described as

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on: Decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on: Decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on:09.02.2011 Decided on: 18.02.2011 WOLLAQUE VENTILATION & CONDITIONING PVT LTD. Appellant Through: Mr.

More information

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Judgment Reserved on: 24th February, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 28th February, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2305/2010 SUSHMA SURI & ANR... Plaintiffs

More information

SUPREMO AMICUS VOLUME 8 ISSN

SUPREMO AMICUS VOLUME 8 ISSN THE RULE OF LAW IN INDIAN POLITY By Anand Prakash From Symbiosis Law School, Pune "Be you never so high, the Law is above you." 1 INTRODUCTION RULE OF LAW The dictionary meaning accorded to rule of law

More information

Reforms In the Legal System for achieving Effective and Speedy Resolution Of Dispute

Reforms In the Legal System for achieving Effective and Speedy Resolution Of Dispute UNIT 5 Reforms In the Legal System for achieving Effective and Speedy Resolution Of Dispute Acts Introduced for Effective and Speedy Resolution Of Dispute There have been many major structural changes

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 27 th January, ARB. P. No.373/2015. versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 27 th January, ARB. P. No.373/2015. versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 27 th January, 2016 + ARB. P. No.373/2015 CONCEPT INFRACON PVT. LTD... Petitioner Through: Mr.Balaji Subramanium, Adv. with Mr.Samar

More information

Arbitration: An Emerging Litigation!

Arbitration: An Emerging Litigation! Arbitration: An Emerging Litigation! E-Newsline March 2017 Introduction In today s business contracts, arbitral provisions are preferred due to various factors. These include desire for secrecy, inclination

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 86 of Tuesday, this the 01 st day of December 2015

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 86 of Tuesday, this the 01 st day of December 2015 1 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 86 of 2015 Tuesday, this the 01 st day of December 2015 Hon ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra,

More information

UNIT 17 TORTS AND CONSUMER COMPENSATION

UNIT 17 TORTS AND CONSUMER COMPENSATION UNIT 17 TORTS AND CONSUMER COMPENSATION 17.1 Background The appropriate Commission is empowered to specify the Standards of performance of licensee 1 If a licensee fails to meet the standards specified

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. W.P.Nos.50029/2013 & 51586/2013 (CS-RES)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. W.P.Nos.50029/2013 & 51586/2013 (CS-RES) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.50029/2013 & 51586/2013 (CS-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI H RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 W.P.(C) 3755/2013 DATE OF DECISION :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 W.P.(C) 3755/2013 DATE OF DECISION : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 W.P.(C) 3755/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 22.07.2014 RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL Through Ms. Archana Ramesh, Advocate... Petitioner

More information

Disciplinary Policy of Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI

Disciplinary Policy of Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI Disciplinary Policy of Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI Contents 1. Preamble 2. Objective 3. Making a Complaint 4. Initial Assessment 5. Show Cause Notice to the Party 7. Rights and

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Date of Reserve: January 14, 2008 Date of Order: January 21, 2009 CS(OS) No.2582/2008 and IA No.425/2009 M/S DRISHTICON PROPERTIES

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 320-336 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 445-461 of 2008) National Small Industries Corp. Ltd....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006 Judgment Reserved on: 24.07.2007 Judgment delivered on: 04.03.2008 Mr. V.K. Sayal Through:

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Page 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 1961 of 2010 Smt. Padma Rani Mudai Hazarika - Versus - - Petitioner Union of India

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. Date of decision: 4th December, 2012 MAC. APP.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. Date of decision: 4th December, 2012 MAC. APP. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Date of decision: 4th December, 2012 MAC. APP. 1165/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate....

More information

Bar & Bench (

Bar & Bench ( CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23 QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016 Complaint Case No. CC/230/2011 ( Date of Filing : 15 Jul 2011 ) 1. KHUSHAL KOLWAR

More information

SUPREMO AMICUS VOLUME 8 ISSN

SUPREMO AMICUS VOLUME 8 ISSN LAND TRIBUNAL UNDER THE TAMILNADU LAND By N. Ilakkiya From Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University 1. INTRODUCTION: The Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 is an important piece

More information

THE KERALA HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2012

THE KERALA HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2012 Kerala Legislature Secretariat 2012 KERALA NIYAMASABHA PRINTING PRESS. 414/2012. A BILL further to amend the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Preamble. WHEREAS, it is expedient further to amend the Kerala

More information

Appointment of Internal Ombudsman (IO) For Redressal of Customer Grievance

Appointment of Internal Ombudsman (IO) For Redressal of Customer Grievance Appointment of Internal Ombudsman (IO) For Redressal of Customer Grievance Internal Ombudsman (Chief Customer Service Officer ) The Internal Ombudsman (Chief Customer Service Officer) has been appointed

More information

2 entered into an agreement, which is called a Conducting Agreement, with the respondent on In terms of the agreement, the appellant was r

2 entered into an agreement, which is called a Conducting Agreement, with the respondent on In terms of the agreement, the appellant was r Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2973-2974 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.10635-10636 of 2014) BLACK PEARL HOTELS (PVT) LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016 % 28 th November, 2017 1. CS(COMM) No.421/2016 M/S VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/2015 % 21 st December, 2015 1. CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) BIGTREE ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through:

More information

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR. Writ Petition No. 623 OF 2017 (PIL) PETITIONER : Kanhaiya Shailesh & Others. Vs.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR. Writ Petition No. 623 OF 2017 (PIL) PETITIONER : Kanhaiya Shailesh & Others. Vs. 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. 623 OF 2017 (PIL) PETITIONER : Kanhaiya Tiwari @ Shailesh & Others Vs. RESPONDENTS: Present : State of Madhya Pradesh and others Hon'ble Shri

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003. Judgment delivered on: versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003. Judgment delivered on: versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003 Judgment delivered on: 03.07.2006 ESS VEE TRADERS & OTHERS... Petitioners versus M/S AMBUJA CEMENT RAJASTHAN LIMITED...

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society & Another.Petitioners Versus All India Council

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: 10.10.2013 OMP 234/2013 NSSL LIMITED...PETITIONER Vs HPCL-MITTAL ENERGY LIMITED & ANR....RESPONDENTS

More information

RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY S. Dr. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, NAGPUR MOOT PROBLEM 1

RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY S. Dr. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, NAGPUR MOOT PROBLEM 1 RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY S Dr. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, NAGPUR 14 th JUSTA CAUSA NATIONAL LAW FESTIVAL MOOT PROBLEM 1 Ram Rahim Joseph (RRJ) is a right handed Indian Citizen

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1956 W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011 C.D. SINGH Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 14.02.2012 CM(M) No.557/2008 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Through: Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Advocate....

More information