Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: gujarat state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc ahmedabad Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.018 seconds)

Oct 17 2011 (TRI)

Niranjanbhai T. Parekh and Others Vs. Ajaybhai Harshadbhai Shah

Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad

Decided on : Oct-17-2011

..... 1995) 3 scc 583, has clearly spelt out the status of consumer fora inter alia stating that the quasi judicial bodies/authorities/agencies created by the act known as district forum, state commission and the national commission are not courts though invested with some of the powers of a civil court. they are ..... . the complainants purpose of floating the scheme was to earn profits. the complainants therefore is not ??consumer as defined under section 2(d) of the act. the complainant no. 4 has cancelled the power of attorney of first complainant because of certain dispute in regard to sharing of the profits, etc. ..... and services purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. indeed the entire act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. the act provides for ??business to consumer disputes and not ??business to business disputes. in a recent case of milan barot ..... s.a. makhija, member: 1. this complaint is filed under the provisions of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the act or c.p. a. for the sake of brevity). 2. the short facts of the complainants case are that the complainants ..... had their own plot no. 70-a at bhavnagar, details of which are given in para-2 of the complaint. the complainants decided to float a scheme of flats on their plots and as such they had given contract .....

Tag this Judgment!


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