Supreme Court Legal News Deficiency in service cannot be attached to a manufacturer for dealer’s omissions and actions. The Apex court on the issue of manufacturers liability for the omissions of its dealer sets aside the impugned order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which affirmed the order of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Court held that Special knowledge of the allegations made by the dealer, and involvement, in an overt or tacit manner,...

Supreme Court Legal News To all methods of out of court dispute settlement, parties can claim refund of court fees: SC adopts a purposive construction of Section 89 CPC and Section 69A of 1955 Act. While deciding on claim of refund of court fees Supreme Court while affirming the view taken by the High Court of Madras held that Section 89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of Section 69A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 (1955 Act) shall also extend to, all methods of ou...

Supreme Court Legal News Banks as service providers owe a separate duty of care to exercise due diligence in maintaining and operating locker. The Supreme Court, while deciding an appeal from the National Commission which held that Consumer Forum has got only limited jurisdiction to adjudicate on the recovery of the contents of the locker, laid down certain principles which will ensure that the banks follow due diligence in operating their locker facilities. The Court held that Banks as servic...

Supreme Court Legal News Debt due is to be deposited before the DRAT as a mandatory requirement under Section 21 while preferring an appeal and any waiver of the pre­deposit in its entirety is not sustainable in law. The Supreme Court in an issue pertaining to the pre-­deposit insofar as the appeal before the DRAT (Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal) is concerned held that Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal by a person from whom the amount of debt is due to the Bank, unless suc...

Supreme Court Legal News Order refusing to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is an appealable order under section 37(1)(c) of the said Act. On the issue of whether a learned single Judge’s order refusing to condone the Appellant’s delay in filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an appealable order under section 37(1)(c) of the said Act, the three ...