Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: kerala Year: 2011 Page 10 of about 96 results (0.109 seconds)

Dec 30 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Singsons Electronics (Defunt) Represented by Its Ex-manager D. Su ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Dec-30-2011

..... contract between the opposite party and the complainant in the matter. hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. the forum below heard both parties and perused the entire ..... endorsement in the bill is as per the scheme envisaged and announced by the manufacturer. the opposite party who stands in the capacity of agent is not liable for the acts of the principal, that it was a direct transaction between the consumer and the manufacturer and the cheque was also issued by the manufacturer and the opposite party is in ..... any alleged deficiency in service, that complainant failed to proceed against additional opposite parties who had drawn and issue cheque to the complainant under sec. 138 of the negotiable instruments acts or by filing civil suit, that complainant has no cause of action for the dishonor of the cheque as against opposite party, that there is no privity of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2011 (TRI)

Jins Divakaran Vs. M/S. Kalpaka Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jul-29-2011

..... is the receipt issued by the opposite party for acceptance of the booking amount of rs. 50,000/. it is to be noted that there was no written agreement or contract entered into between the complainant and the opposite party with respect to the purchase of said apartment j 13 d in katticaren residency. but, there was an understanding to execute ..... deficiency in service or unfair or deceptive trade practice on the part of the opposite party. in fact, the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the c.p. act. the opposite party returned the amount paid by the complainant after deducting the tax at source and the said amount was received by the complainant. the present complaint is filed ..... case of the complainant is as follows;- the complainant is a resident of thrissur district and working at doha, qatar. the opposite party is a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956, engaged in the business of constructing flats, apartments and villas. on the basis of the publicity given by the opposite party regarding construction of apartment by name ??katticaren j .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 2011 (TRI)

The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B.A. Abdulla Kunhi and An ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Nov-26-2011

..... the vehicle after 2 weeks and thereafter the 2nd opposite party absconded along with the vehicle. we find that there is no scope for treating the above transaction as a contract as there is no consideration and hence the contention that on claim arose out of contractual liability cannot be sustained. 8. as per ext.b3 policy the company has undertaken ..... to indemnify the insurer against loss or damage of the vehicle by burglary, house breaking or theft etc. and by malicious act vide section 1(vii) of policy. evidently the act that involved comes within the amplitude of ??malicious act ? . hence the above contention of the appellant is liable to be rejected . it is seen from ext.a9 rc book that vehicle ..... the insured against loss or damage of the vehicle by burglary, house breaking or theft, by accidental external means and by malicious acts etc. the action of 2nd opposite party in the instant case is nothing but a malicious act and hence it was held that the opposite parties are liable to indemnify the complainant. 6. the counsel for the appellants has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2011 (HC)

Jiby John and Another Vs. State Bank of India Represented by Its Chief ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-12-2011

Reported in : 2011(2)ILR(Ker)709; 2011(2)KLT922; 2011(3)KLJ83; 2011(2)KHC575

..... pursuant to specific schemes formulated by the government (sought to be implemented as part of national objective) giving appropriate directions through the rbi etc are to be considered by the contracting parties, i.e., borrower and bank. but the matter may require some judicial scrutiny if there is a challenge as to any deviation being made by the concerned banks, contrary ..... . 5. normally, there cannot be any direction by way of a writ of mandamus to provide a loan to a particular party/borrower, which essentially comes within the realm of contract. the proposal when accepted, is put into shape as an agreement, followed by consequential steps, granting the loan subject to the agreement to have it repaid with interest in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 29 2011 (TRI)

Baburajan P.M., Managing Director and Others Vs. M.T. James, Director, ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Dec-29-2011

..... opposite parties to redress the grievances of the complainant, but they have not promptly discharged their liability to the complainant. instead of discharging their contractional application, opposite parties are targeting each other for the generator set for escaping from their legal liabilities. another question of law raised by the ..... 1st opposite party that the hotel is a limited company established under the companies act and the complainant is an individual and he is not anyway have the legal right to file this complaint on behalf of the complainant. ..... to the fault of the machine or due to these opposite parties. the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant, since no act of these opposite parties have caused any trouble or mental agony, or financial loss or hardship to the complainant. the opposite parties have done ..... received by the 1st opposite party directly from the hotel of the complainant and the complainant is a consumer as defined in the consumer protection act. the opposite parties claim regarding sound level etc. is false. the complainant denies the allegation of mishandling of the generator set. the forum ..... to the fault of the machine or due to these opposite parties. the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant, since no acts of these opposite parties have caused any trouble or mental agony, or financial loss or hardship to the complainant. there is no deficiency of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Asmacs Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder Sri. K. Ramakr ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jul-22-2011

..... to incur an amount of rs. 65,975/- and that they had to pay a compensation of rs. 25,000/- to the employer company as per the terms of the contract with the employer company. he has argued before us that the complainant was informed that the passport was with them and he could collect the same at any time from .....

Tag this Judgment!


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