Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
Shriram Chits (India) Private Ltd, a chit‑fund company, sued to set aside a consumer‑forum order that ordered it to refund Rs.18,750 with interest to Raghachand Associates, the complainant, for alleged deficiency in service after the chit business was terminated. The service provider contended that …
The appeal concerned a chit fund operated by Oriental Kuries Ltd., where the respondents defaulted on twelve instalments. The lower courts had allowed recovery of the past instalments but barred recovery of future instalments, holding that a chitty agreement creates only a promise to pay, not a …
The Union of India challenged the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment that exempted chit fund companies from service tax on the ground that their activities fell within the definition of "banking and other financial services" under s.65(12)(a)(v) of the Finance Act after the 2007 amendment. The issue …
The Supreme Court examined whether race clubs such as the Bangalore Turf Club and the Royal Western India Turf Club, as well as a chit fund, fall within the definition of "shop" under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) and the related notifications. The Court held that a race club is …
PGF Limited, which sold and developed agricultural land and ran joint‑venture schemes, was directed by SEBI to cease collecting money and to refund investors, on the ground that its activities constituted a collective investment scheme (CIS) under Section 11AA of the SEBI Act. PGF challenged the …
The plaintiff, a regular subscriber to a Cochin kuri, sued the State of Kerala and the foreman for the share of unpaid auction discount that he claimed was due to him. The trial court held that the foreman could only retain the commission expressly provided in the Vaimpu and that any forfeited …
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, challenged by various chit fund companies and individuals on the grounds that it infringed their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) and that Parliament lacked legislative competence, alleging the Act …
