Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

June 2024

Allied Laws

By Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate
Rahul K. Hakani | Shashi Bekal, Advocates
Reading Time 7 mins

11 Bar Of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases

2024 Live Law (SC) 372

14th May, 2024

Advocates — Professionals — Highly skilled — Success depends on various factors — Cannot be compared with business — Cannot be held for deficiency of service. [S. 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986]

FACTS

The Appellant, an advocate was hired by Mr. DK Gandhi (Respondent) for legal services. Disputes arose between them and the Respondent filed a consumer complaint before the district forum for deficiency in services. The District forum decided the complaint in favour of the respondent. The State Commission held that the services of lawyers /advocates did not fall within the ambit of “service” defined under section 2(1)(o) of the CP Act, 1986. The NCDRC, however in the Revision Application preferred by the respondent passed the impugned order holding that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by the Advocates / Lawyers, a complaint under the CP Act would be maintainable.

Being aggrieved by the said impugned order passed by the NCDRC, the

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

Section 132 of the Act — Search and seizure — Condition precedent — Revenue authorities must have information in their possession on basis of which a reasonable belief can be formed — Contents of satisfaction note did not disclose any information which would lead authorities to have a reason to believe that any of contingencies as contemplated by Section 132(1)(a) to (c) were satisfied — Search and seizure action was to be quashed and set aside.

Related Party Transactions: The Purpose & Effect Test