Central Administrative Tribunal
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Once some benefit has accrued in favour of an employee, the same cannot be snatched, without providing any opportunity to the employee. Thus, the decision of the respondents to reduce the pay of the applicants is contrary to the settled position of law.

Continue reading
CESTAT
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

‘Namkeen’ has not been defined either contextually in the notification or as a separate nomenclature in the tariff under Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that the adjudicating authority had erred in concluding that the impugned goods were not ‘namkeen’.

Continue reading
CESTAT
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

All the activities rendered by the appellant are undertaken during hosting the cricket matches alone and if there were no cricket matches played, then all these services become irrelevant.

Continue reading
DCDRC finds Matrimony.Com Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver video album of a marriage reception held in 2017
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

The complainant’s hair became extremely tangled after getting a hair spa treatment. As all efforts to untangle her hair went in vain; she had to cut her hair, which went against her religious tenets and beliefs as a Sikh and the affected her mentally, emotionally and professionally.

Continue reading
DCDRC finds Matrimony.Com Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver video album of a marriage reception held in 2017
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

After completing her 12th standard, the student had started preparing for the All India Law Entrance Test, 2022 and studied hard, so that she could achieve her dream to take admission in a National Law University and become a law aspirant.

Continue reading
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

“SCDRC was not justified in saying that a person is entitled to more compensation, depending upon the fact of the case than the compensation as provided under the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990”.

Continue reading