Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court reiterated that one-sided Agreements, as in the present case, would be covered by the definition of term “unfair trade practice”.
“People do not purchase the high-end luxurious cars to suffer discomfort more particularly when they buy the vehicle keeping utmost faith in the supplier who would make the representations in the brochures or the advertisements projecting and promoting such cars as the finest and safest automobile in the world.”
by Tanu Banerjee†, Sankalp Jain†† and Vaibhav Laddha†††
“Such a deceptive act from the part of an erring manufacturer or trader is tantamount to jeopardizing the very dignity of the consumer and his right to live a life free from exploitation or deception or any kind of unfair trade practice.”
“Promotional trailers are unilateral and are only meant to encourage a viewer to purchase the ticket to the movie, which is an independent transaction and contract from the promotional trailer. A promotional trailer by itself is not an offer and neither intends to nor can create a contractual relationship.”
The Commission stated that restaurants and cafes have a moral and legal obligation to provide free drinking water to their patrons, and failure to do so constitutes deficiency in services.
Holding Samsung India liable for deficiency in service, DCDRC stated that often companies fail to provide spare parts required for a product’s proper functioning, thereby eventually compelling consumers to discard still-functional products.
DCDRC was of the view that the manner of conducting the mock drill by the hospital was not only a severe deficiency in service but also as an extreme type of unfair trade practice.
On 30-11-2023, the Central Consumer Protection Authority notified the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023. The provisions came into
“Testers are being sold by the defendants, Xeryus Retail (P) Ltd. masquerading them as perfumes of the plaintiff, Coty Germany GMBH for sale, thereby, luring customers into paying money for such testers which are otherwise, not to be commercially dispensed.”
The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from dealing in any goods, under the impugned trade mark ‘Lifelong’ or any other mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff’s (Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd.) registered trade mark ‘Lifelong’, to cause infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks.
Securities and Exchange Board of India: Mehul C. Choksi has been restrained from buying, selling or dealing in securities and
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While deciding upon the instant complaint concerning alleged unfair trade practice followed by Flipkart of tampering
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Chandigarh: While deciding the instant appeal filed by VLCC Health Care Ltd. against the
Delhi High Court: Yashwant Varma, J. stayed the ruling passed in the form of guidelines by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (‘CCPA’)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad: Coram of M. Anuradha President (FAC) and Lakshmi Prasanna, Member, held that, Retailers/shopkeepers charging for plastic/paper/cloth
Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI): G. Mahalingam (Whole Time Member) held that while directors are not prohibited from trading in units
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh: The Coram of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Padma Pandey, Rajesh K. Arya (Members)
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC): Coram of Dr Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Anil Srivastava (Member) decided on the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) expressed that: Law is settled that illegal and forceful means cannot be