WakeelSaab.in

FACTS   IN YEAR 2022, A PERSON WAS ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL IN NOIDA AFTER SUFFERING FROM HIGH FEVER AND FACING BREATHING DIFFICULTY. THEY ALSO INFORMED THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN ADVANCE FROM WHERE THE PERSON WAS HAVING HIS MEDICLAIM POLICY. THE COMPANY ASSURED THAT CASHLESS CLAIM WILL BE CLEARED IN FEW DAYS. WHEN THE TREATMENT WAS DONE, THE INSURANCE COMPANY REJECTED THE CLAIM. LATER, THE PARTY WAS FORCED TO PAY THE BILL ON THEIR OWN. AFTERWARDS THEY FILED A CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO REJECTED WITH REASONS THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE PATIENT TO GET ADMITTED FOR A SIMPLE FEVER WITHOUT HAVING OTHER SYMPTOMS. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE PERSON SENT THEM A LEGAL NOTICE, HOWEVER STILL CLAIM WAS NOT PASSED. LATER A CONSUMER CASE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE INSURER.  OBSERVATIONS RECENTLY WHILE PASSING THE JUDGMENT, THE CONSUMER FORUM OBSERVED THAT IN SUCH CASES, THE INSURER CANNOT DECIDE IF THE PATIENT REQUIRES ANY HOSPITALIZATION OR NOT. IF THE DOC...

 Facts  Consumer purchased a laptop with an extended warranty. The said warranty covers the repair of the said laptop within the period of warranty. After using the said laptop, consumer found that there were some issues with the same including the display problems. The same was intimated to the Company, who sent their officials for the repair of the same. However, each time one defect is cured, some other issue comes up with the working of the laptop. It all happened during the period of extended warranty. Finally, the consumer approached the Delhi Consumer Forum, for deficiency of service. After service of the summons/notice, the Opposite Party, that is, the Company who manufactured the said laptop approached before the Consumer Forum and stated that since they have provided complete assistance during the period of warranty, that too, free of cost, hence, they have not committed any error and hence the Complaint filed by the Consumer be dismissed.   OBSERVATIONS OF...

RECENTLY CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ORDERED A REFUND OF RS. 80,000/- PAID AS FEE ALONGWITH INTEREST AND A COMPENSATION FOR DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE ON PART OF AN EDTECH FIRM.  FACTS  A PARENT IN CHANDIGARH ENROLLED HER DAUGHTER TO THE EDTECH FIRM. THEY PROMISED THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE THE STUDY MATERIAL ALONG WITH LIVE CLASSES AND TABLET FOR THE SAME. HOWEVER, AFTER THE RECIEPT OF FEE OF RS. 80,000/-, THEY FAILED TO DELIVER THE SAID SERVICES. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY NEITHER PROVIDED THE COMPLETE STUDY MATERIAL NOR HANDED OVER THE TABLET AS PROMISED. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE SAID PARENT FILED A COMPLAINT. TO THE CONTRARY, THE DEFENCE TAKEN BY THE SAID FIRM WAS THAT THEY HAD PROVIDED THE SERVICES AS AGREED. EVEN THEY STATED THAT THEY WERE ALSO WILLING TO REFUND THE FEE BUT THE COMPLAINANT FAILED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. DECISION AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THE CONSUMER COURT GAVE THE ORDER IN FAVOR OF THE COMPLAINANT DIRECTING THE COACHING INSTITUTE TO REFUND THE FEE ALONG WIT...

Hello friends, today we shall talk about the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which facilitates the process of substituting the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff or defendant. Suppose a person instituted a civil case, and during the pendency of the said case, he/she died. In such a scenario, the case shall continue, and the legal heir of the person can be substituted. However, this can be done by filing an application under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, and praying before the Court that the mentioned legal heirs be substituted in place of original plaintiff.  Similarly, when a person against whom a case is filed, dies during the pendency, in such an event, he can be also substituted and the same can be done by filing an appropriate application under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC.  The point to remember here is that the aforesaid application is to be filed within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of death or from the date of knowledge of de...

RECENTLY BENGALURU DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DIRECTED ONLINE MERCHANT FLIPKART TO REFUND AN ANOUNT OF RS. 13,999/- ALONGWITH COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,000/- TO A 80-YEAR OLD FOR CAUSING MENTAL AGONY. BRIEF FACTS An 80 -Year Old Consumer ordered a treadmill on the online site of Opposite Party Flipkart. In compliance the treadmill was delivered to the consumer. At the time of installation of the product, it was revealed by the technician that the treadmill is faulty. On coming to know that the consumer returned the product to Flipkart and sought replacement. Initially Flipkart failed to replace the product but in some time, the replaced product was delivered to consumer, however, despite requests they failed to send the technician. When consumer tried to fix the same on its own, it was found that the product was of some other company. In other words, it was not the same product which has been initially ordered by the consumer. With no resolution, the consumer was left with no other option bu...

RECENTLY KERALA HIGH COURT DISMISSED WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE  226 OF CONSTITUTION FILED BY FATHER ON BEHALF OF HIS 10- YEAR OLD GIRL FOR SEEKING AN ORDER TO ENTER SABARIMALA TEMPLE. THE SAME IS DISMISSED IN LIGHT OF REVIEW PENDING ON THE SAID ISSUE BEFORE THE LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT. BRIEF FACTS 10 year old girl filed a writ petition before the Kerala HIgh Court seeking relief of mandamus seeking directions to Travancore Devaswom Board to allow her to offer pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple without taking into account the restrictions of age since she has not attained puberty or in the alternative to allow the request of the minor on sympathetic grounds. It is contended by the Petitioner that they are planning to visit the temple since long and it has been delayed due to onset of Covid earlier. Now, the family is under distress and also the father of Petitioner is not in good health. Hence, they have applied the same online but since in the meanwhile the age of Petit...

In an appeal filed by Crompton against order passed by Single Judge granting injunction in favor of V-Guard, and restraining Crompton from using their alleged mark “PEBBLE” has been dismissed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court BRIEF FACTS  V-Guard filed a case against Crompton before Delhi High Court restraining them from using the mark “PEBBLE” . It is argued that they are selling the goods like water heater, geysers since the year 2013, under their registered label “PEBBLE” which forms the dominant part of the mark. It has been selling the electric and consumer goods since 1977 under the name V-Guard and claims to have a turnover of over 2600 crores, hence requires protection. Crompton, on the other hand, that the word “PEBBLE” is a common dictionary word, and not a coined word, hence its exclusive use cannot be granted to anyone. It is further argued that their mark as a whole is visually, phonetically is different. Further, they are using the mark for electric irons, ...

RECENTLY, DELHI HIGH COURT WHILE HEARING A MATTER FOR TRADEMARK INJUNCTION GRANTED RELIEF OF INTERIM INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF "FAB INDIA" RESTRAINING "FAB INDIA EMPORIUM" FROM USING THE SAID MARK BEING DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE PLAINITFF. THE COURT HELD THAT PRIMA FACIE CASE LIES IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS IN THEIR FAVOR AND IF RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED PLAINTIFF SHALL SUFFER IRREPARABLE LOSS TO THE PLAINTIFF  BRIEF FACTS  Plaintiff filed a commercial suit before Delhi High Court RESTRAINING defendants from using the mark " FABINDIA " as the same is alleged to be deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a retail company engaged in production and retail of handcraft goods under the name and style of "FAB INDIA". The said company has been incorporated in the year 1960 and since then plaintiff has expanded its operations throughout the country. It is alleged that the plaintiff owns more th...

In a recent case, Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the petition for divorce filed by wife observing that since husband is convicted for murder in a separate case and is in custody for last 6 years, separation constituted mental cruelty on wife and it further amounts to situational desertion, forming a valid ground for granting divorce. BACKGROUND Parties got married in the year 2011 and subsequently blessed with a daughter. Years later husband faced trial for murder of his own father owing to certain property dispute and went into custody in the year 2017. Finally, husband got convicted in the year 2019 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Seeing the same, wife filed a petition for divorce in the District Court Gwalior alleging cruelty as a ground. In addition husband cruel behaviour towards wife is also alleged in the said petition.  The district court however, refused to grant the petition filed by wife observing that conviction of husband in separate criminal case is no grou...

NCLT Chandigarh Bench comprising Sh. Harnam Singh Thakur (Member Judicial) and Sh. L.N. Gupta (Member Technical), vide its order dated: 06.06.2024 duly observed that in view of approval by creditors and shareholders of all the Petitioner Companies together with no objections received on behalf of all the statutory bodies involved, there lies no impediment in sanctioning the scheme among Petitioners Companies and their respective shareholders under Sec 230 to 232 and other relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.  It is however made clear that aforesaid Sanction shall not mean any exemptions from payment of taxes before any statutory bodies and under relevant laws including that of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is further clarified that in case of any deficiency, violations of any sort by the Petitioner Companies, in such an event the Sanction shall not come in way to the relevant authorities from taking their course of actions. The Tribunal also noted down certain conditions ...