Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period  ||  Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5  ||  Supreme Court: No Review or Appeal is Maintainable Against an Order Appointing an Arbitrator  ||  SC: Terminated Contract is Not a Corporate Debtor’s Asset and a Moratorium Cannot Revive it  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must be Filed at the Payee’s Home Branch under S.142(2)(A)  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity; Accused’s Specific Role Must be Assessed  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed  ||  Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict  ||  Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award  ||  Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9    

SC: Reconsideration Required of the Judgement That Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act - (15 May 2024)

CONSUMER

Supreme Court while deciding whether advocates can be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has observed that the judgement that brought doctors under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also requires reconsideration.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT   RECONSIDERATION   DOCTORS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved