Jan

(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction Assets of Financial and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section–13(4) and Rule–8 of Security Interest (Enforcement) demand Notice Rules, 2002–Symbolic possession–Quashing of Notice of possession qua the demised premises–

Consumer Protection Act, 1986–Section 2–Deficiency in Service–Insurance Claim–Surveyor’s Report–Complainants being joint owners of a truck insured, suffered an accident–

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section–2(1)(g) read with Section–92 of H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968–Deficiency in Service–Jurisdiction– Maintainability of a Complaint–Dispute of settlement of accounts–

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section–37(1)(b)–Conditions/Restriction for granting bail involving commercial quantities–

(A) Constitution of India,1950 Article 136-Special leave petition-Concurrent finding-Interference-Suit for possession-The suit was decreed and upon holding the plaintiff as owner of encroached land handing over the same after demolition of structures-There are concurrent findings of Trial Court, First Appellate Court as also the High Court on the questions of ownership over the land and its encroachment by appellant-Appellant has failed to show any valid ground for interference-Held-That concurrent finding of fact does not call for interference in an appeal under Article 136 of Constitution of India in absence of any valid ground for interference-Suit rightly decreed-Appeal dismissed.(Paras 4 and  22)