TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court remits jurisdiction issue back to State Commission under Consumer Protection Act</h1> <h3>K. Sagar, M.D., Kiran Chit Fund Musheerabad Versus A. Bal Reddy & Anr.</h3> K. Sagar, M.D., Kiran Chit Fund Musheerabad Versus A. Bal Reddy & Anr. - 2008 AIR 2568, 2008 (9) SCR 1129, 2008 (7) SCC 166, 2008 (9) SCALE 38 Issues involved: Challenge to order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission regarding jurisdiction of Consumer Forums in dispute between chit fund and prized subscriber.Summary:1. The appeal challenged the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which upheld the State Commission's decision in favor of the complainant, a prized subscriber of a chit fund.2. The complainant defaulted on payments to the chit fund, leading to a dispute over the amount owed. The State Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering payment of a specific sum.3. The appellant, Kiran Chit Fund, argued that Consumer Forums lack jurisdiction in disputes involving chit funds and prized subscribers, citing a previous case for support.4. The respondent contended that the jurisdiction issue was not raised earlier and should not be considered now.5. The Supreme Court noted the importance of determining jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act and disagreed with the National Commission's dismissal of the revision petition without considering the jurisdiction issue.6. Consequently, the Court set aside the National Commission's order, remitting the matter back to the State Commission to decide on the jurisdiction question. The parties were directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings.7. The Court clarified that its decision did not touch upon the merits of the case and allowed the appeal without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
