SEKAR REPORTER

[30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 111 : subhechha welfare society vs Earth infrastructure pvt ltd : Held recognized consumer association can file complaint on behalf of several consumers in one complaint ( consumer protection act 1986 sec 12(1)(b) [30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 600 : kotak mahindra bank pvt ltd vs Ambuj A kasliwal SC : ordinarily deposit of 50% of decretal amount due mandatory under sec 21 of RDDBFI act , but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded deposit of at least 25% permissible [30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 589 : daddys builders pvt ltd vs manisha bhargava SC : consumer fora has no power to condone delay beyond 45 days in filing written statement ( sec 13 consumer protection act 1986 ) [30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 550 : A Rajendran vs Arulanthasamy nadar : Advocates though entitled to fees cannot retain files for their demand , appropriate remedy is to file separate suit for recovery of professional fees [30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 1982 (2) SCC 396 : mayur panabhai shah vs state of gujarat : No presumption that the doctor is always a witness of truth , the evidence of a doctor has to be appreciated like any other witness

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

[30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 111 : subhechha welfare society vs Earth infrastructure pvt ltd : Held recognized consumer association can file complaint on behalf of several consumers in one complaint ( consumer protection act 1986 sec 12(1)(b)
[30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 600 : kotak mahindra bank pvt ltd vs Ambuj A kasliwal SC : ordinarily deposit of 50% of decretal amount due mandatory under sec 21 of RDDBFI act , but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded deposit of at least 25% permissible
[30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 589 : daddys builders pvt ltd vs manisha bhargava SC : consumer fora has no power to condone delay beyond 45 days in filing written statement ( sec 13 consumer protection act 1986 )
[30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 550 : A Rajendran vs Arulanthasamy nadar : Advocates though entitled to fees cannot retain files for their demand , appropriate remedy is to file separate suit for recovery of professional fees
[30/10, 11:23] Vinothpandian: 1982 (2) SCC 396 : mayur panabhai shah vs state of gujarat : No presumption that the doctor is always a witness of truth , the evidence of a doctor has to be appreciated like any other witness

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Exit mobile version