Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation

"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"]

Similar News