Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

"Criteria for Identifying a 'Consumer' Under the Act Must Be Flexible," Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, Supreme Court shook the legal foundations of consumer rights and contractual obligations in India, particularly in the context of real estate deals. Overturning the earlier ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the court provided a precedent-setting interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, thereby imparting a breath of fresh air to aggrieved small business owners who had been ensnared in a detrimental contractual agreement with a major real estate developer.

The judgment focused its scrutiny on "the jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Sections 21 and 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Contract Act, 1872." It also explored various rules and regulations connected to the property sector [Para 3-5].

Supreme Court pointed out, "We must understand that the definition of 'commercial purpose' is flexible and should not be constrained by a rigid set of rules. The Court must interpret it on a case-by-case basis to serve justice" [Para 12]. The court went further to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines that should be employed in the future to accurately identify who qualifies as a 'consumer' under the Act [Para 13-14].

Not just content with deciphering legal terms, the court was unequivocal in its condemnation of the real estate developer's unethical actions. It declared that the failure to meet the 24-month deadline for property delivery was a clear "violation of the contractual agreement" and emphasized the need for timely execution of contracts [Para 15].

Supreme court directed the respondent—identified as the major real estate developer—to refund the entire amount paid by the appellants. The order also specifies an annual interest rate of 12% and adds Rs. one lakh to be paid towards the cost of litigation. This decision must be executed within 60 days from today [Para 16-17].

Legal experts and consumer rights activists have hailed today's judgment as a revolutionary step. "This is more than just a win for the appellants; it sets a new benchmark for future cases where consumer rights are in question," says Senior Advocate Mr. Sharma.

Date of Decision: 9 September 2023

ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR. vs M/S VIPUL LTD. 

                                                                     

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/06-Sep-2023_Rohit_Chaudhary_Vs_Vipul_Ltd.pdf"]

Latest Legal News