Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Lotus Greens Developers Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Shalini Singh on 15 December, 2022
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4594-4595 OF 2021
M/S LOTUS GREENS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
(NOW KNOWN AS M/S BROAD HOMES PVT. LTD.) APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SHALINI SINGH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.01.2020 in C.C.No. 2572 of 2018 and order dated 11.02.2021 in E.A. No. 150 of 2020 in CC NO. 2572 of 2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short `NCDRC’).
The Respondent No.1 herein was before the NCDRC seeking repayment of the amount that they had paid in respect of an residential apartment that was booked by them on 28.02.2014 in project undertaken by respondent No.2. In all a sum of Rs.26,22,222/- was paid between the periods 09.08.2014 to 16.04.2015 towards part payment against the total consideration of Rs.98,15,715/-.
The claim that was put forth before the NCDRC is that the appellant Signature Not Verified as also the respondent No.2 herein were liable to Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.12.17 12:06:35 IST Reason: 1 repay the amount since the construction of the flat had not been completed as per the agreement. The NCDRC having taken note of the contention has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant as also respondent No.2 are jointly and severally liable to repay the said amount with interest @ 10% per annum.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant while assailing the order passed by the NCDRC would contend that no payment was made to the appellant herein and there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent No.1. As such the appellant could not have been made liable for the amount if any received by the respondent No.2. It is in that light contended that the order impugned is not sustainable and execution levied against the appellant is also not justified.
The respondent No.1 represented by her daughter as Power of Attorney Holder would contend that entire transaction was with the involvement of the appellant herein and the payment to be made as provided in Clause 4.11 of the Agreement dated 09.04.2015 which has reference to the appellant. It is further contended the receipts containing the logo and name of the appellant.
Though such contention is put forth on behalf of the respondent No.1, a perusal of the order passed by the NCDRC does not indicate any finding with regard to that aspect of the 2 matter to hold the appellant liable. Though NCDRC has noted the contention put forth by the appellant, it has not arrived at definite conclusion in that regard except to conclude that the appellant had marketed the project. Therefore, in the matter of the present nature, where the respondent No.1 insists that there was transaction between the appellant and respondent No.1 for which documents are available with the respondent No.1, we find that the order dated 29.01.2020 is not sustainable in its present form. If the respondent No.1 by providing the documents establishes that the appellant has in fact jointly alongwith respondent No.2 has received the amount, the refund will be justified or else if only marketed and any deficiency in serve due to non delivery of that whether any compensation is payable will have to be determined. These are all aspects which require determination by NCDRC.
We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the NCDRC to restore Consumer Case No. 2572 of 2018 on its file and provide opportunity to the respondent No.1 herein who is the complainant in the said complaint to bring on record all relevant documents and allow the parties to put forth their contention and a decision be taken in that regard. Considering that the complaint was filed in the year 2018, we request the NCDRC to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
To enable the same the parties may appear before the NCDRC without issue of fresh notice, on 10th January, 2023 as the first date for appearance. The NCDRC may thereafter regulate the 3 proceedings and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible but in any event make an attempt to dispose of within three months from that date.
In view of the above order, it is needless to mention that the execution proceedings cannot be proceeded at this juncture and the said proceedings may be closed to await the decision by the NCDRC.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
All contentions of parties are left open to be urged before the NCDRC.
…………………………………………………………J. [A.S. BOPANNA] ………….……………………………………….J. [DIPANKAR DATTA] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2022
4
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.13 SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos. 4594-4595/2021
M/S LOTUS GREENS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
(NOW KNOWN AS M/S BROAD HOMES PVT. LTD.) Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SHALINI SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 90141/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 100313/2021 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and IA No. 90139/2021 - STAY APPLICATION) Date : 15-12-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Raj Kamal, Adv.
Mr. Aseem Atwal, Adv.
Mr. Arvsh Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Kartavya Batra, Adv. Ms. Prapti Alagh, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kamal, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Tarana Singh, Respondent-in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of signed order.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5