Skip to main content

Posts

Consumer Law | Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (GLADA) v. Vidya Chetal, S.L.P. (C) No. 4272 of 2015 16-09-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar & Ajay Rastogi, JJ. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (GLADA) v. Vidya Chetal, S.L.P. (C) No. 4272 of 2015 16-09-2019 with S.L.P. (C) No. 5237 of 2015 Punjab Urban Development Authority v. Ram Singh. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g) and 2(1)(o) - “deficiency” - “service” - meaning of - the determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a “deficiency in service”, can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Act. Those exactions, like tax, and cess, levied as a part of common burden or for a specific purpose, generally may not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. However, those statutory fees, levied in lieu of service provided, may in the usual course be subject matter of Consumer Forum’s jurisdiction provided that there is a ‘deficiency in service’ etc. [Para 21 & 29]
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

Family Law | Prachi v. Shailendra Kumar, F.A. No. 40 of 2011 13-09-2019 All.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT  | Sudhir Agarwal & Rajeev Misra, JJ. Delivered on : September 13, 2019
Post a Comment
Read more

Execution | S. Bhaskaran v. Sebastian, C.A. No. 7800 of 2014 13-09-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar & Ajay Rastogi, JJJ. S. Bhaskaran v. Sebastian, C.A. No. 7800 of 2014 13-09-2019
Post a Comment
Read more

Second Appeal | State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, C.A. No. 7363 of 2000 14-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Abhay Manohar Sapre & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. C.A. No.7363 of 2000 with C.A. No.7364 of 2000 and C.A. No.7365 of 2000 14-08-2019  The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – “Concurrent Finding of Fact” – It is not the principle of law that where the High Court finds that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), such finding becomes unassailable in the second appeal. True it is as has been laid down by this Court in several decisions that “concurrent finding of fact” is usually binding on the High Court while hearing the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, this rule of law is subject to certain well known exceptions mentioned infra. It is a trite law that in order to record any finding on the facts, the Trial Court is required to appreciate the entire evidence (oral and documentary) in the light of the pleadings of the parties.
Post a Comment
Read more

Contempt of Courts | Seema Sapra v. Court On Its Own Motion, Crl.A. No. 1238 of 2019 14-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | A.M. Khanwilkar & Ajay Rastogi, JJ. Crl.A. No. 1238 of 2019 (Dairy No. 10342 of 2016) with (Interlocutory Application Nos. 128666 of 2017, 123144 of 2017, 122625 of 2017, 127773 of 2017, 30030 of 2018, 112422 of 2018 and 110313 of 2019 with W.P. (C) No.13 of 2018 (Alongwith C.M.P. No.4015 of 2018 and Interlocutory Application Nos.62789 of 2019, 99303 of 2019 and 61232 of 2019) & Writ Petition (C) No.1027 of 2018 (alongwith C.M.P. Nos.122904 of 2018 and 97450 of 2018) 14-08-2019 The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 19(1) – Utterances made by the appellant before the High Court – Whether the same would constitute criminal contempt in the face of the Court. By this application, appellant has prayed that she may be permitted to place on record documents mentioned in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the application which according to her are fraudulent, invalid and forged documents. The same were filed before the High Court of Delhi i
Post a Comment
Read more

Railways Act | Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v. Union of India, C.A. No. 6270 of 2019 13-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Indu Malhotra & Indira Banerjee, JJ. C.A. No. 6270 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32055 of 2018) Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v. Union of India with C.A. No. 6271 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32056 of 2018) Ravibhai Vallabhbhai Sutariya v. Union of India with C.A. No. 6272 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32057 of 2018) Ishwerbhai Bhikabhai Patel v. Union of India with C.A. No. 6273 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32058 of 2018) Vallabhbhai Chanabhai Ahir v. Union of India, 13-08-2019 The Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 20D – Power to Acquire Land – Hearing of Objections – In the absence of an order passed under Section 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the acquisition would consequentially get invalidated. The Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 20D – Power to Acquire Land – Hearing of Objections – The Act being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions have to be strictly construed. In any event, the order under S
Post a Comment
Read more

Murder Trial | R. Jayapal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 56 of 2010 09-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari , JJ. R. Jayapal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 56 of 2010 09-08-2019 The India Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - In the given circumstances, the likelihood of the deceased, who was on inimical terms with the wife of the accused, having given the reasons for provocation by way of aggression or attempted intrusion into the house of the accused is not ruled out. The incident in question took place without any premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, when the deceased attempted entry into his house; and the accused did neither take any undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. A fortiori, Court inclined to extend the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to the accused. However, the act of the accused leading to the death having been with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused deserves to be convicted f
Post a Comment
Read more