Laws India

88125 Judgements of High Courts and Tribunals of India as on 03/03/2024 Search (Free), Read, Download,

DELHI HIGH COURT

Moti Mahal or Daryaganj? Delhi High Court to examine which restaurant invented Butter Chicken, Dal Makhani Moti Mahal has sued Daryaganj restaurant over the use of the tagline “Inventors of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani”; it claims that Daryaganj is misleading people.

LawsIndia Jan 21, 2024 0 Comments

Who invented Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani? The Delhi High Court may well answer this mouth-watering question in the coming days as it adjudicates a dispute between the Moti Mahal…

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

HELD we are of the definite view that the respondent -complainant is entitled to get Rs. 64,242/- as claim amount in place of Rs. 1,14,555/- plus crane charges Rs. 2,500/- in place of Rs. 5,000/-alongwith simple interest @ 6% in place of 7%. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part and the impugned judgment is also liable to be modified to such extent.

LawsIndia Dec 17, 2023 0 Comments

UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. SH. KHEM RAJ PAINULI — Respondent ( Before : Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II and…

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

After death of the developer, the OPs No. 1 & 2 have come into the picture and now they are liable to refund for the act of husband of OP No. 1/father of OP No. 2. The OPs No. 1 & 2 have not denied the receipt of payment by the developer, rather they are trying to accumulate fund and in search of new developer. We think, complainant is entitled to get @ 6% simple interest on the deposited amount as compensation from OPs No. 1 & 2. In view of above discussion, the complaint case succeeds.

LawsIndia Dec 17, 2023 0 Comments

WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   SMT. SONALI CHATTERJEE W/O SRI JAYANTA CHATTERJEE — Appellant Vs. MRS. SUMITRA HALDER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Manojit Mandal…

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Consumer Law – Insurance – ‘NIL Liability’ – The complainant obtained insurance for a building from OPs/insurer from 23.05.2001 to 22.05.2002, covering a risk of Rs. 2,60,00,000/-. They suffered flood loss on 17.07.2001 – Despite multiple attempts for settlement, they received clarification and promptly submitted documents – The complainant filed a complaint for harassment and mental agony, seeking directions to pay Rs. 16,78,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- The District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.8,87,939/- with 9% interest – Hence, on account of above critical analysis of evidence so led by parties, post remand of matter; this Commission observes that there is no evidence of flood – The insurer’s surveyor’s report on 19.06.2002 found no evidence of a flood at the insured premises, resulting in an assessed loss of Rs.97,877/- – The surveyor recommended ‘NIL Liability’, stating the wall was outside the factory and no loss occurred due to flood – The insurers argued that the loss was not payable, as no flood evidence was provided – The Commission has deemed the District Consumer Commission-Ambala’s order dated 03.05.2017 perverse and legally unsustainable, setting it aside and dismissing the complainant’s main appeal.

LawsIndia Dec 17, 2023 0 Comments

HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   PRAGATI PAPERS INDUSTRIES KALAAMB DISTT.SIRMOUR H.P. THR M.D. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. THR BRANCH MANAGER NARAINGARH DISTT.AMBALA AND OTHERS…

Next Page »

You Missed

DELHI HIGH COURT

Moti Mahal or Daryaganj? Delhi High Court to examine which restaurant invented Butter Chicken, Dal Makhani Moti Mahal has sued Daryaganj restaurant over the use of the tagline “Inventors of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani”; it claims that Daryaganj is misleading people.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

HELD we are of the definite view that the respondent -complainant is entitled to get Rs. 64,242/- as claim amount in place of Rs. 1,14,555/- plus crane charges Rs. 2,500/- in place of Rs. 5,000/-alongwith simple interest @ 6% in place of 7%. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part and the impugned judgment is also liable to be modified to such extent.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24(A)

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

After death of the developer, the OPs No. 1 & 2 have come into the picture and now they are liable to refund for the act of husband of OP No. 1/father of OP No. 2. The OPs No. 1 & 2 have not denied the receipt of payment by the developer, rather they are trying to accumulate fund and in search of new developer. We think, complainant is entitled to get @ 6% simple interest on the deposited amount as compensation from OPs No. 1 & 2. In view of above discussion, the complaint case succeeds.