|
|
Database updates
Judgments
NCDRC Bar Association (Regd.) vs Davinder Malhotra and Others
[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 18 Jul 2008]
Consumer Protection Act, s. 24-B - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is having supervisory jurisdiction over consumer fora in the country - Unless there is a contrary judgment by the Apex Court, the State Commission is bound to follow the decision rendered by the National Commission - If there are conflicting decisions rendered by the National Commission, the State Commission may decide the matter appropriately accepting one or the other judgment - Constitution of Bench before the National Commission is absolutely within the jurisdiction of the President of the National Commission - Observations stayed.
|
Dlf Universal Limited vs Ekta Seth and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Jul 2008]
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Cancellation of allotment of flat by appellant - Power and jurisdiction of the appellant in forfeiting the earnest money - Held, by inserting the words "the decision of the Company in this regard would be final and binding on the Apartment Allottee" in clause 4 of the agreement the company has vested in itself unrestricted power to increase the cost - There were bona fide reasons on the part of the appellant for their inability to handover the said possession within the stipulated time and the increase in cost was on account of factors specifically enumerated - Directed that 50% of the amount which was forfeited be refunded by the appellant to the respondent within three months - Appeal disposed of.
|
Union of India vs Satrohan
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 Jul 2008]
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, s. 8(c), 15 - Trial Court convicted the respondent and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of rupees one lakh with default stipulation - High Court directed acquittal holding that there was non- compliance of Sections 42(2) and 50 - Appeal against - Held, since authorization was obtained s. 57 comes into play - It is pointed out that there is licence of the father also - High Court's order does not suffer from any infirmity - Appeal partly allowed.
|
Atul Nanda and Another vs Reserve Bank of India and Others
[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 14 Jul 2008]
Plea , that there is deficiency in service by various banks in giving credit to the payee when the cheque is encashed and there is large float, which is enjoyed by the Banks for their benefits - Held, for the collection of outstation cheques, various banks have framed their own policies on the basis of the directions issued by this Commission and after reviewing their respective cheque collection policies - Directions issued.
|
Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies Private Limited Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 10 Jul 2008]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Whether a land owner, who enters into an agreement with a builder, for construction of an Apartment Building and for sharing of the constructed area, is a 'consumer' entitled to maintain a complaint against the builder as a service-provider under the Act - Held, where the builder commits breach of his obligations owner has the right to enforce specific performance and/or claim damages by approaching the civil court, or he can approach the Forum under Consumer Protection Act, for relief as consumer, against the builder as a service- provider - A prayer for completion certificate and C&D Forms cannot be brushed aside by stating that the builder has already applied for the completion certificate or C&D Forms - Appeal allowed.
|
Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore vs Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath
[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 10 Jul 2008]
Consumer Protection Act, s. 2(1)(g) - Negligence on the part of the Passport Officer in not signing the passport at the time of its issuance - District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.10, 000/- and costs of Rs.2, 000/- to the complainant - Revision petition - Held, issuance or non-issuance of a passport may be a statutory duty and may not be a consumer dispute but issuance of an invalid passport which is not signed by the Passport Officer, would be deficiency in service on the part of the concerned officer as defined under s. 2(1)(g) - Such lapse amounts to a serious deficiency in discharge of duties, which is in the nature of rendering of service, hence, the complaint is maintainable - Petition dismissed.
|
Aslam Mohd. Merchant vs Competent Authority and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Jul 2008]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Interpretation and application of Chapter VA providing for forfeiture of property derived from or used in illicit traffic - What are the statutory requirements for initiating a valid proceeding - Held, property which is sought to be forfeited must be the one which has a direct nexus with the income etc. derived by way of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or any property acquired therefrom - Provisions of the Act must be interpreted in a manner so that its constitutionality is upheld - Validity of the provisions might have received constitutional protection, but when stringent laws become applicable as a result whereof some persons are to be deprived of his/her right in a property, scrupulous compliance of the statutory requirements is imperative - Appeals allowed.
|
(1) "Awaz", Punita Society, Ahmedabad; (2) "Jagrut Nagrik", Gujarat; (3) Pradeep Kumar Thakur; (4) Dcm Financial Services Limited, New Delhi vs (1) Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai; (2) Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Mumbai; (3) American Express Bank Limited; (4) Citibank, N.A., Chennai; (5) Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi; (6) Mukesh Rajput; (7) Chhabiram Singh Dhakad, Prop. Vikram Financial Services, Madhya Pradesh
[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 07 Jul 2008]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Alleged deficiency in service - Whether the Reserve Bank of India is required to issue any circular or guidelines prohibiting the Banks / Non-Banking Financial Institutions / money lenders from charging interest above a specific rate; Whether banks can charge the credit card users interest at rates ranging from 36% to 49% per annum if there is any delay or default in payment within the time specified; Whether interest at the above-stated rates amounts to charging usurious rates of interest - Held, if the service provided by the bank in connection with banking facilities is deficient, then it would be 'service' as contemplated under the Act and any dispute pertaining to such service would be governed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - If the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 requires that the RBI shall discharge certain functions in the public interest and the RBI does not discharge such functions, it would amount to unfair trade practice - Permitting the banks to charge excessive/usurious rates of interest would be quite different and it would be in clear violation of public policy - No justifiable ground for not controlling the banks which exploit the borrowers by charging exorbitant rates of interest varying from 36% to 49% p.a., in case of default by the credit card holders to pay amount before the due date - Penal interest can be charged only once for one period of default and shall not be capitalized - Complaint allowed.
|
Benny Thomas vs Food Inspector, Kochi and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Jul 2008]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, ss. 16(1)(a)(i) r/w 7(1), 2(ia)(m); Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, r. 50 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, from the evidence of PW-1 it is clear that at one point of time the sample was handed over to the public analyst on the succeeding day of taking the sample from the shop of the accused - As rightly held by the High Court there was no violation of Rules 17 and 18 - Appeal dismissed.
|
Central Bank of India, Debenture Trustee Section vs (1) Tadepalli Padmaja and Others; (2) P.S. Prabhakar Rao and Others; (3) Chadalavada Lakshmaiah and Others; (4) B. Rama Mohana Rao and Others; (5) V. Savitri Devi and Others; (6) Halwasiya Chhatra Niwas, Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Limited; (7) T.V.A. Lakshmy Alias Ananta Lakshmy
[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 04 Jul 2008]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Indian Trusts Act, 1982 - Companies Act, 1965, 119(1) and 117B - SEBI (Debenture Trustees) Regulations, 1993, Regn . 16 - Revision petitions - Against orders passed by various State Commissions - In what circumstances the debenture trustee would be liable to reimburse the debenture holders for failure of the issuer-company to pay the periodical interest and/or for the redemption amount on the due date - Held, answer to the question would depend upon the findings whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the trustee in discharge of its fiduciary duties as trustee as contemplated by statutory provisions - As it has to protect the interests of the debenture-holders at all times and on noticing any default by the company, it has to take appropriate timely corrective action - Petitioner-Bank failed to discharge its fiduciary duty with special care and skill as is expected from professional corporate trustee and had not taken appropriate steps as contemplated under the SEBI Regulations - Petitions dismissed.
|
K. Sagar, M.D., Kiran Chit Fund, Musheerabad vs A. Bal Reddy and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Jun 2008]
Whether Consumer Forums established under the Act have jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the chit fund and one of its prized subscriber or between the subscribers? - Held, issue relating to jurisdiction has to be decided by the forums first - Matter remitted to State Commission to consider the question of jurisdiction - Appeal disposed of.
|
Jaipur Ceramics Private Limited vs New India Assurance Company Limited
[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 26 May 2008]
Complaint against insurance company repudiating claim of complainant for reimbursement despite the reasoned and detailed survey report, on the ground that there was violation of condition Nos. 6 and 8 of the terms and conditions of the policy - Held, Surveyors specifically stated that all the relevant records such as bank stock statements, purchase and sales invoices, excise records, registers of production, balance-sheets, costing details, etc. were also examined in detail and were co-related; it was also specifically observed by the preliminary Surveyors that the insured being accredited with I.S.O. certificate was found to have updated records; when the surveyors did the entire exercise in detail there was no justifiable ground for the insurance company to repudiate the claim on the flimsy ground that there was breach of condition Nos. 6 and 8 - Application allowed.
|
Public Service Commission vs Beermasthan
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 23 May 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIRW.A.No. 1697/2007:1. The point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal is whether correct construction has been placed on Rr.14to 17 of Part II, Kerala State & Subordinate
|
Andromeda Foundation India Private Limited vs D.G.H.S. and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 May 2008]
Customs Act, 1962, s. 124 - Whether order passed under the notification withdrawing Customs Duty Exemption Certificate on ground of non submission of additional information and marginal deviation with respect to the facilities provided to the poorer sections of the population was justified? - Whether show cause notice as per s. 124 of Customs Act, 1962 had to be given to appellant before impugned order? - Notification was issued by the Government of India whereby medical equipment imported for specified purposes, was exempted from the payment of customs duty - Held, the large scale misuse of the medical equipment imported under the exemption notification, and in the light of the observations in Mediwell's case, it is essential that the authorities regulatory monitor the use of the equipment - S. 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 has absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case as this provision deals with the confiscation of goods, which is not the case - Appeal dismissed.
|
Seema Silk and Sarees and Another vs Directorate of Enforcement and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 May 2008]
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Constitutionality of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 18 - Held, a discrimination on the ground of valid classification which answers the test of intelligible differentia does not attract the wrath of art. 14 of the Constitution of India - Hardship, by itself, may not be a ground for holding the said provision to be unconstitutional - No foundation fact has also been brought on record - Appeal dismissed.
|
Bajaj Auto Limited vs Director General (I and R) and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 May 2008]
Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Application that an enquiry be instituted against Bajaj Auto Limited for indulging in restrictive trade practice within the meaning of s. 33 - Held, neither the notice nor the application even allege that the appellant has ever indulged in or that the alleged trade practice has or may have the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition in any manner and in particular it, inter-alia, tends to obstruct the flow of capital or resource into the stream of production or tends to bring about manipulation of prices or conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies into the market in such a manner so as to impose unjustified costs and/or restrictions on the consumers of goods in question and therefore ex facie neither notice nor the application are maintainable - Appeal allowed.
|
State of Rajasthan vs Udai Lal
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 May 2008]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - High Court acquitted the accused - Appeal against - Held, High Court failed to take note of the relevant aspect, namely, the quantity of recovery articles is quite huge (115 bags) which could not be produced in the court but on behalf of the prosecution 5 bags have been produced in the Court - Considering the huge quantity merely because the prosecution has not produced all the 119 bags in the Court, an inference cannot be drawn against them - When the view taken either by Session Judge or Special Judge was found by the High Court to be manifestly wrong and that it had led to mis-carriage of justice, the High Court is entitled to interfere and set aside the same - Such recourse has not been adopted by the High Court in this case - Remitted the matter to High Court.
|
National Insurance Company Limited vs Nitin Khandelwal
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 May 2008]
Insurance claim - According to the appellant, respondent had violated the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, rejected the claim - Held, in the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane - Appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer - In case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis - Appeal disposed of.
|
P.Venugopal vs Union of India
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 May 2008]
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2007 - Constitutional validity of the proviso to s. 11(1A) - Held, curtailment of the term of five years can only be made for justifiable reasons and compliance with principles of natural justice for premature termination of the term of a Director of AIIMS - squarely applied also to the case of the writ petitioner as well and will also apply to any future Director of AIIMS - There was never any permissibility for any artificial and impermissible classification between the writ petitioner on the one hand and any future Director of AIIMS on the other when it relates to the premature termination of the term of office of the Director - Such an impermissible over classification through a one man legislation clearly falls foul of art. 14 of the Constitution being an apparent case of "naked discrimination" in our democratic civilized society governed by Rule of Law and renders the impugned proviso as void, ab initio and unconstitutional - Petition allowed.
|
Sitaram Agarwal and Another vs Subarata Chandra and Damkrishna Dhara and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 06 May 2008]
Whether the property in question is a debuttor property? - Held, records of rights clearly showed that it was mutated in the name of the deity - The very fact that the purchasers thought it necessary to file a suit as against their vendor is itself a pointer to show that the said suit was a collusive one - Neither the deity was impleaded as a party therein nor the State of West Bengal was - On what basis the entry in the record of rights was made in the name of the deity is not known - In view of the finding of fact arrived at by Court of First Appeal which has been affirmed by the High Court, no reason to take a different view - Appeal dismissed.
|
Balban Singh vs State
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 06 May 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. S. MURALIDHAR1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th September 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ') (Special Court), NDPS, Delhi convicting the Appellant
|
(1) Ramesh Kumar Rajput @ Khan; (2) Makrand Prabhakar Sabnis vs State Nct of Delhi
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 02 May 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. S. MURALIDHAR1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and the order dated 8th September 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi in SC No. 11/2004
|
Andhra Bank, Tanuku, Represented By Its Branch Manager vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and Another
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 01 May 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :The success of the State of Andhra Pradesh in O.S. No.58 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bhimavaram by being granted a decree for Rs.23, 99, 720-88 ps. with costs and subsequent interest
|
S.Shekhar vs State
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 01 May 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE H. R. MALHOTRA1. This is an application seeking bail for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 198501494.xml. According
|
Yashwitha Constructions Private Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director M.Promod Mumar Reddy, Chennai vs Simplex Concrete Piles India Limited, Rep. By Its Managing Director, Kolkata
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 01 May 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :This application is filed, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996A32n.xml, seeking appointment of a retired Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, or a technically qualified
|
|