Respondents Sample Clauses

Respondents. This is an appeal under the provisions of K.E.R.C (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd Respondent) vide No. UÁæª ÉÃ/¹ ª ÉÊJ¸ ï - 1 dated 8th April 2011 in respect of the Appellant’s grievance relating to delay in refunding Deposit Amount by the 1st Respondent in spite of furnishing original receipt. The 2nd Respondent in the impugned order directed HESCOM (Hubli Electricity Supply Company - hereinafter referred to as the 1st Respondent) to pay an amount of Rs.300/- at the rate of Rs.50/- per day to the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the 2nd Respondent’s order (the impugned order), the Appellant has submitted his case as under: The Appellant applied for 5 kW temporary power supply for a period of seven days for the purpose of conducting mass marriage in Hubli. The Appellant paid Advance Consumption charges of Rs.2800/- and Metre Security Deposit of Rs.3920/- on 17th December 2008 to the 1st Respondent. The electric installation was installed on 17th December, 2008 and assigned R.R. No T.L 2029. After completion of the event, the installation was disconnected on 23rd December, 2008. Later, on 26th December, 2008, the Appellant applied for refund of (a) Advance Consumption Charges (b) Meter Security Deposit with the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent on this refund application called for Completion Report from the Section Office. The Appellant furnished (a) Refund Application (in duplicate) (b) Completion Report (c) Original Receipt for having paid the advances to the 1st Respondent through the Section Office . As the Appellant did not hear anything from the 1st Respondent, he wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer on 10th March 2010 and, on this letter, the Executive Engineer called for a report from the 1st Respondent. In response to this, the 1st Respondent in his letter vide No.287-88 dated 5th April 2010 addressed to the Executive Engineer confirmed having sent the refund proposals on 23rd May 2009 in respect of installation No T.L 2029 for approval. The Executive Engineer, on this letter, wrote to the 1st Respondent on 29th September, 2010 saying that he had not received any proposals as stated in the said letter and advising him to send fresh proposals. Since the Asst. Executive Engineer conveyed to the Appellant that HESCOM had misplaced the original receipts and other documents, and at the instance of HESCOM, the Ap...
Respondents. The Airports Authority of India, Mangalore Airport. Bajpe has filed this appeal on 29th, November 2010 and the same is registered at No OMB/M/G-95/2010/. The appeal arises out of the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (in short, the Forum - 2nd Respondent) Mangalore‟s order No. ª ÀÄA«¸ ÀPÀA/Uáæ.PÀÄA.PÉÆ.¤.ª ÉÃ/04/10 - 11 ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.10.2010 in respect of the Appellant‟s grievance relating to levying of penalty, interest and back billing by MESCOM. The Forum declined to issue directions to MESCOM (herein after referred to as the 1st Respondent) to waive the penalty and the interest charges. Being aggrieved with the Forum‟s order (the impugned order), the Appellant filed this appeal. The Appellant‟s case is as under:
Respondents. 1. This is an appeal under the provisions of KERC Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 against the orders passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd Respondent) vide No. UÁæª ÉÃ/ CYS-4 dated 05.07.2011 in respect of the Appellant’s grievance relating to levying of Back billing charges for Rs.8,61,418/- by the Asst.Executive Engineer, O & M Sub-Division, HESCOM, Dandeli (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Respondent) and rejection of his prayer by the 2nd Respondent to issue directions to the 1st Respondent not to collect the Back Billing Charges. Aggrieved by the orders of the 2nd Respondent (the impugned order), the Appellant has submitted his case as under:
Respondents. ♦ On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth CircuitBRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS ♦ XXXXXX X. XXXXXXX Counsel of Record XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, PLANT, XXXXX, XXXXX & XXXXXXX, P.A. 500 IDS Center 00 Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 XXXXXX X. XXXXXX XXXXXX LAW FIRM 000 Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxx Xxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (000) 000-0000 OR CALL COLLECT (000) 000-0000 QUESTION PRESENTED Does an agreement by two competing oil companies to fix prices through a joint venture, unrelated to any pur- pose of the joint venture, violate Section 1 of the Xxxxxxx Act under the per se rule or quick look rule of reason? TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ............................................ i STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................... 1 1. Overview ............................................................. 2 2. Formation ofThe Alliance” ............................... 4
Respondents. X TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME OR MAY CONCERN, KNOW THAT XXXXX XXXXXX CARRET & CO., LLC (hereinafter referred to asBMC” or “Releasor”), for good and valuable consideration received from ECO2 PLASTICS INC., f/k/a ITEC ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. and XXXX DE LAURENTIIS (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Itec” or “Releasees”), the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, covenants not to xxx and hereby releases and discharges Releasees, Releasees’ current or former officers, directors, members, partners, employees, agents, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, alter-egos, predecessors, successors or assigns or otherwise related entities, attorneys, and insurers, from all actions, causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, extents, executions, claims and demands whatsoever in law, admiralty or equity, which the Releasor, Releasor’s current or former officers, directors, members, partners, employees, agents, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, alter-egos, predecessors, successors or assigns or otherwise related entities, attorneys, insurers, heirs, executors or administrators, ever had, now have or hereafter can, shall or may have from the beginning of the world to the date of this General Release, including but not limited to any claim, counterclaim or cause of action which was or could have been asserted in, or which arise from any of the facts or transactions that form the basis for any claim or counterclaim, set forth in any pleading filed in any action which was pending or in an arbitration entitled Xxxxx Xxxxxx Carret & Co., LLC v. ECO2 Plastics Inc., f/k/a Itec Environmental Group, Inc. and Xxxx De Laurentiis, NASD Docket No.: 06-04871. Releasor agrees and fully understands that this is a full and final General Release applying to all known, unknown, anticipated and unanticipated injuries and damages from the beginning of the world to the date of this Release, including any and all claims now existing or which may arise in the future, arising out of the alleged circumstances, incidents or events set forth in the Action. Releasor expressly waives any right or claim of right to assert hereafter that any claim, demand or obligation and/or cause of action has, through ignorance, oversight or error, been omitted from the terms of this General Release, and further expressly waives any ri...
Respondents. The above appeal filed on 03-12-2013 has come up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 22-03-2014 at Warangal. The appellant as well as the respondents were present. Having considered the appeal, the written and oral submissions made by the appellant and the respondents, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed the following:
Respondents agree the terms of this agreement shall be subject to public disclosure unless Complainant and Respondents agree otherwise, and the Commission determines that disclosure is not necessary to further the purposes of Iowa Code Chapter 216 relating to unfair or discriminatory practices in housing or real estate. Release
Respondents. [Respondents 1,2,3 and 5 are represented by M/s Justlaw, Advocates, Respondent 6 is represented by Indus Law, Advocates) RP No. 9/2016 BETWEEN: Xxxxx Corp Limited, Mandpia Choraha, Chittor Road, Bhilwara - 311 001. .. PETITIONER [Petitioner is represented by Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Advocates] AND:
Respondents. The above appeal filed on 29-09-2013 has come up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 18-01-2014 at Hyderabad. Dr. Xxxxxxxxx, the appellant as well as respondents 1 & 3 above were present, while respondent 2 sought exemption from hearing on the ground that some official review meeting had to be attended to and authorized respondent 1 to represent on his behalf. Having considered the submissions of the appellant, the respondents and the material available on record the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following: