Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: chennai Year: 2011 Page 12 of about 256 results (0.045 seconds)

May 18 2011 (TRI)

The Marketing Manager, Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. N. Siva, ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

Decided on : May-18-2011

..... quality and the water used in the manufacturing process in filtered, sterilized. there is absolutely no chance of any foreign body entering into the bottle. there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. the complainant is not a consumer. there is no cause of action to file this complaint. hence it is liable to be dismissed ..... that discovery of fungal formation by a vigilant person would cause mental agony. for the award of compensation, the complainant should prove injury within the meaning of the consumer protection act 1986. the bottling of various beverages under diverse trade marks is directly carried out in sophisticated and modern bottling plants which ensure a very high standard of hygiene and cleanliness .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2011 (TRI)

S. Ramu and Another Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Other ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

Decided on : Mar-21-2011

..... admission made by the complainants, the first opposite party has nothing to do with the dispute relating to the allotment of the shares, as such, there was no privity of contract, if at all anything was done by the second opposite party, and if the delay any had happened, the complainants are not entitled to proceed against the first opposite party ..... though contested the appeal has not questioned the quantum granted against the second opposite party or not urged before us that the second opposite party has not committed any negligent act or deficiency in service. therefore, the first opposite party should take responsibility of deficiency committed by the second opposite party and in case, we feel, based upon the inter parties ..... substantiated before us. as far as the consumer fora jurisdiction are concerned, restricting in the document, regarding the jurisdiction will not be taken into account, in view of the fact, act contemplates, where the case is to be filed, based upon cause of action. since the first opposite party branch office is within the territorial jurisdiction of the consumer forum, chennai ..... the shares by 31.03.2004 that is within the prescribed period, the complainants would have made lot of money by selling the shares, which was deprived, by the negligent act of the opposite parties, for which, they are liable to pay a sum of rs.1 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service and another sum of rs.1 lakh .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2011 (TRI)

The Secretary, Mda Hsg 108, Srivilliputhur Vs. P.Sundaram and Another

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-2011

..... denied the allegations and stated complainant is not a consumer and the complainant has to seek remedy under sec.90 of the tamilnadu co-operative societies act 1983 and the 2nd opposite party having no contract directly with the complainant and the 1st opposite party is not accountable to the 2nd opposite party and both are different legal entity and there was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2011 (HC)

M.inayadulla Vs. P.Palanisamy and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-18-2011

..... section 16(c) read with explanation (ii) is that any person seeking benefit of the specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief. the provision imposes a personal bar. the court is to ..... following passage found in paragraph 14. "14. this rule, namely rule 10, was also amended by the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976 (act 104 of 1976). prior to its amendment, it was held in a number of decisions that the rule can be invoked only in those situations ..... this purpose, he relied upon the following passage found in paragraph 14, which is as follows:- "14. section 20 of the specific relief act, 1963 preserves judicial discretion of courts as to decreeing specific performance. the court should meticulously consider all facts and circumstances of the case. the court ..... others reported in (2005) 7 scc 534 for contending that the ingredients of section 16(c) read with explanation (ii) of the specific relief act has been complied with. he placed reliance upon the following passage found in paragraph 12, which is as follows:-12. the basic principle behind ..... karuppannan is the brother-in-law of one veterinary doctor s.palanisamy. a dispute arose between the respondent, thangaraj and karuppannan. the said karuppanan was acting as benamidar to dr.s.palanisamy. the properties of karuppannan were given as security with the indian overseas bank, periyar nagar banch, erode. as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2011 (HC)

Anusuya Devi Vs. K.Panchanathan and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-2011

..... by lrs. v. m.venugopal pillai and ors.), in which, it reads as follows:"held: what s.92 (of the evidence act) provides is that when the terms of any contract, grant or other disposition of the property, or any matter required by law to be reduced in the form of document, have ..... has issued notice under ex.a3 and public notice under ex.a5, the appellant/defendant was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract and hence they filed the suit. here, financial status of the respondents/plaintiffs are not disputed. hence the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to decree ..... so the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the respondents/plaintiffs are not ready and willing to perform their part of contract, does not merit acceptance. (ii) further the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that during the pendency of the suit, there was a ..... the nature of the property involved in the context of kerala land reforms act, and the kerala private forest (vesting and assignment) act. the defendants never responded to the letter-exhibit a2 issued by the plaintiffs seeking performance of the contract. no response was also sent to the letters exhibit a-2 to ..... because there was valid agreement of sale. section 16(c) of the act envisages that plaintiff must plead and prove that he had performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than those terms the performance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2011 (HC)

Ms.Arasan Textile Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. Second Appellate Committee.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-21-2011

..... fulfilling its contractual obligation in terms of the bank guarantee. an injunction of the court ought not to be an instrument which is used in nullifying the terms of a contract, agreement or undertaking which is lawfully enforceable. in its aforesaid letter dated 24th november, 1995 respondent no.1 had clearly admitted that entire supply had not been made. in view ..... by its counsel before the committee. the contention raised by the petitioner was that the export obligation could not be fulfilled because of the buyer in refusing to honour the contract and open l/c on account of fall in yarn prices and poor market conditions. the committee was of the view that the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner have no ..... was not justified in granting an injunction.6. apart from laying down the law on the field, the supreme court in paragraph no.32 also warned the other courts from acting contrary to the settled legal position, which reads as follows:when a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this court, it would amount .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2011 (TRI)

Salma Begum Vs. the Chief Manager, State Bank of India and Another

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

Decided on : Oct-20-2011

..... clause ?? order of national commission, set aside ?? direction of state commission to indemnify the loss, restored. ? and in ii (2007) cpj page 320 in which it is stated as follows :- ??contract ?? interpretation of terms statute should be in consonance with its aims and objects ?? any other interpretation not permissible ?? interpretation should not be grammatical or literal ?? same should always be logical ..... and liberal ?? true intention of statue or contract is guiding principle. ? cannot be accepted as beneficial to the complainant. hence we are of the view for the reasons and discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs that the order ..... are clearly mentioned. hence in this regard the ruling relied upon by the complainant reported in 2000 ncj (sc) page 219 in which it is stated as follows : ??consumer protection act, 1986 ?? section 14 deficiency in service ?? insurance ?? all risk insurance policy ?? allegation of violation of policy of insurance ?? duties of all the parties to disclose all facts known to them .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Vijaya Bank Shevapet Branch, Salem Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

Decided on : May-27-2011

..... the waybill and other documents, at the first instance, questioning the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, on the basis of territorial jurisdiction, resisted the complaint, contending, that there was no contract between themselves, and the complainant, that when the consignee was not traceable, they returned the bill prudently, promptly thereby committed no deficiency at all, that thereafter they have not received ..... bill, invoice etc., the complainant is also unable to recover the goods consigned, and it is not known, what had happened to the goods also. by the negligent and deficient act of the 1st opposite party, the complainant was unable to realize the amount or even we would say, recover the consignment, for which the 1st opposite party should be held ..... also, and therefore neither the consignor, nor the post office is a necessary party to the proceedings, that too, in view of the admitted facts, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the above said parties, as far as the service provided is concerned. the dismissal of the complaint, against the 2nd opposite party, on the ground of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2011 (HC)

M. Joy Varghese and ors. Vs. the State and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-15-2011

..... defacto -complainant to pay the balance of rs.75 lakhs and take possession of the properties, but the defacto-complainant failed. according to the petitioners, there is a breach of contract by the defato-complainant, in pursuant to which, a complaint was given against the defacto-complainant in cr.no.169 of 2007 at calicut. the petitioners had alleged that the ..... consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. explanation: - an act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid ..... properties were already hypothecated with the canara bank in kerala state and as such he has been cheated by the petitioners. indisputably, the bank has initiated the proceedings under sarfeasi act for the recovery of its dues.12. the petitioners would contend that the defacto-complainant has suppressed material facts in their complaint. according to the petitioners,the defacto-complainant did ..... would submit that before taking cognizance of offence, the courts below ought to have seen whether there are enough materials to frame charges against the accused and the court cannot act as the mouth piece of the prosecution without any effective role in considering the matter. the learned counsel further submitted that the courts below have misconstrued the guidelines laid down .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2011 (TRI)

Chandra Bhushana, Gupta Korada and Others Vs. American Express Banking ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

Decided on : Nov-29-2011

..... loss ? . 14.as pleaded in the written version, though attempted to deny the conditions available in para 13 by the complainants, they form part of the contract, wherein, there are two main conditions, relied on by the opposite parties and they are ??you have not given the travellers cheque to another person or company ..... to be violated or not followed by the complainants, then in refusing or postponing the payment for the tcs lost cannot be faulted perse as negligence act or deficiency as the case may be. 15. in para 6 of the complaint, it is said ??the said red folder was kept in ..... under section 14 of the consumer protection act, which we will discuss infra also. 12. the prayer column reads ??(a) the opposite parties should be directed to pay a sum of rs. ..... 21 and certain allegations regarding mental agony in para 18 and 19 of the complaint. we were unable to find any specific accusation regarding any negligence act on the part of the opposite parties or deficiency in service, which are required to pass an order, in favour of the consumer, as contemplated ..... not maintainable and if at all regular civil court should have been approached. the opposite parties cannot be held vicariously liable for the wrongful and negligence act of the complainants. the complainants have committed multiple violation of the purchase agreement for travelers cheque, in terms of view, they were sold and .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //