Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

"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