Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1330 (2.46 seconds)
Documents citing Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993

Sahota Seeds Ltd vs M/S Nitishree Infrastructures Ltd on 17 April, 2023

Judgment The Supreme Court, at the outset, reiterated the position taken in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, and held that "the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities". It further held that the power of the NCDRC extends to awarding compensation to consumers for misfeasance in the public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. Therefore, it upheld the appeals filed before it to the extent that it confirmed the jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award compensation in cases of service rendered by statutory & public authorities (the land development authorities in the present case).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahota Seeds Ltd vs M/S Nitishree Infrastructures Ltd on 17 April, 2023

Judgment The Supreme Court, at the outset, reiterated the position taken in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, and held that "the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities". It further held that the power of the NCDRC extends to awarding compensation to consumers for misfeasance in the public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. Therefore, it upheld the appeals filed before it to the extent that it confirmed the jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award compensation in cases of service rendered by statutory & public authorities (the land development authorities in the present case).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sohan Singh vs M/S Nitishree Infrastructures Ltd on 17 April, 2023

Judgment The Supreme Court, at the outset, reiterated the position taken in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, and held that "the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities". It further held that the power of the NCDRC extends to awarding compensation to consumers for misfeasance in the public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. Therefore, it upheld the appeals filed before it to the extent that it confirmed the jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award compensation in cases of service rendered by statutory & public authorities (the land development authorities in the present case).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sohan Singh vs M/S Nitishree Infrastructures Ltd on 17 April, 2023

Judgment The Supreme Court, at the outset, reiterated the position taken in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, and held that "the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities". It further held that the power of the NCDRC extends to awarding compensation to consumers for misfeasance in the public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. Therefore, it upheld the appeals filed before it to the extent that it confirmed the jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award compensation in cases of service rendered by statutory & public authorities (the land development authorities in the present case).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Anil Mehta vs Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2021

Furthermore, as stated above, the opposite parties did not deliver possession of the unit purchased by the complainants by the promised date i.e. latest by 16.01.2014 (delivered during pendency of this complaint), as such, it can very well be said that there is a denial of service on their part. Our this view is supported by the principle of law laid down in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, 1994 AIR 787, 1994 SCC (1) 243,  wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the developer is at fault in not delivering possession of a property by the committed date, the act so amounts to denial of service, and consumer complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Fora. In no way, filing of this complaint amounts to seeking rewriting/modification of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is therefore held that the plea taken by the opposite parties that this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and that the same needs to be relegated to the civil court, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Anita Singh vs Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. on 27 October, 2022

Our this view is supported by the principle of law laid down in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, 1994 AIR 787, 1994 SCC (1) 243, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the developer is at fault in not delivering possession of a property by the committed date, the act so amounts to denial of service, and consumer complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Fora. In no way, filing of this complaint amounts to seeking rewriting/modification of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is therefore held that the plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3 that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission or that this consumer complaint amounts to seeking rewriting/modification of the terms and conditions of the agreement, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Birender Kumar Sharma vs Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. on 10 August, 2022

In Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In Bharathi Knitting Company Vs.DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd.- (1996) 4 SCC 704, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the contention that in an appropriate case, the Consumer Forum without trenching upon acute disputed question of facts may decide the validity of the terms of the contract 15 based upon the fact situation and may grant relief, though, each case depends upon its own facts.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kartar Singh vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd. on 7 July, 2021

Furthermore, because, as stated above, opposite parties no.1 and 2 have failed to prove on record that genuine possession of the plot in question was offered to the complainant and, on the other hand, it has been proved to be a paper possession, as such, it can very well be said that there is a denial  of service to the complainant on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. Our this view is supported by the principle of law laid down in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, Civil Appeal No.6237 of 1990, decided on 5.11.1993,  wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the developer is at fault in not delivering possession of a property, the act so amounts to denial of service, and consumer complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Fora. Objection taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2 in this regard, as such, stands rejected.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jyoti Prakash Shoor vs M/S Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd. on 12 November, 2021

Furthermore, as stated above, the opposite parties did not deliver actual physical possession of the unit purchased by the complainant and on the other hand, cancelled the allotment thereof, on flimsy grounds, as such, it can very well be said that there is a denial  of service on their part. Our this view is supported by the principle of law laid down in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, 1994 SCC (1) 243,  wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the developer is at fault in not delivering possession of a property, the act so amounts to denial of service, and consumer complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Fora.  It is therefore held that the plea taken by the opposite parties that this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, as it allegedly contains complicate questions of fact and law, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next