SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Cause of action for the complainant continued even after the date of the Agreement Under Consumer Protection Act - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCRRC) is hearing a complaint filed by the 'complainant' on behalf of the purchasers of flats in the Royale Garden complex in New Okhla, Mumbai. The opposite party claimed that the Agreement contained an arbitration clause and that whatever facilities/amenities were promised at the time of promotion of the complex, have been put in place. Complaint was resisted by the opposite party both on merits and on the ground of limitation. BY NCDRC Complaint partly allowed with cost of Rs. 25,000/­ with direction to the opposite party to make the systems/facilities as at Sl. 2,3,4,5 and 6 of the prayer clause of the complaint operational/complete. Aggrieved by the order of the National Commission, the opposite party (builder), has come up with one appeal in C.A.No.2998 of 2010. Aggrieved by the refusal of the National Commission to grant the reliefs as per prayer clause nos. 1, 7, 8, 9 & 10, the consumer­complainant has come up with another appeal in C.A.No.4085 of 2010.Complaints under section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have a period of two years from the date of the cause of action for the admission of a complaint, by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission. In the case on hand, the opposite party handed over the maintenance of the complex to the complainant, under an Agreement dated 15.11.2003. There were specific obligations to be performed by the opposite party under the said Agreement, in relation to certain services. Therefore, the cause of action for the complaint, as per the above clauses continued even after the date of the Agreement namely 15.11.2003.the National Commission was right in rejecting the objection relating to limitation. Appeal is dismissed that the reliefs granted by the National commission does not warrant any interference. 

D.D- September  28, 2021 

 

M/S.PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS (I) LTD.  VERSUS THE GENERAL SECRETARY  (SHRI AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL  GARDEN    RESDIENTS WELFARE  ASSOCIATION                           

Latest Legal News