Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2008 (6) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the `National Commission'). Before National Commission challenge was to the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hydrabad (in short the `State Commission'). By its order dated 19.6.2001 the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it amount of ₹ 70,000/-, the present appellant paid only ₹ 60,000/- and the balance of ₹ 10,000/- was payable to him with interest and that since he paid ₹ 54,700/- already, he is ready to pay the balance of ₹ 45,300/- in instalments. The complainant approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite parties to pay ₹ 14,000/- to him. 3. Though the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt was allowed. The National Commission was of the view that in the cheque somebody had added some figures but who did the mischief was not known. However since somebody has committed the mischief, the revision petitioner before it cannot be granted any benefit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed without cost. 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Consumer Forums established under the Act have jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the chit fund and one of its prized subscriber or between the subscribers. It is not correct as contented by the respondent No. 1 that the question of jurisdiction was not raised. In fact the State Commissioner observed that since the respondents before it i.e. functionaries of the chit fund were not consum....