Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing K.H.K. Rangam vs Tycoon Builders And Anr. on 11 November, 2005

M/S Shivalik Enterprise vs Nimesh R Parmar on 22 April, 2022

In K. H. K. Rangam Vs. Tycoon Builders Madras, 2006 (1) CPJ 27 (NC), it was held that even if the construction was unauthorized it shall have no bearing on the case of the complainant, it is for the authority concerned to take action, we are connected with the deficiency in services provided to the appellant, nothing more than that. By this authority also order of the Forum cannot be upheld.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust ... vs Bittu Son Of Barsati Ram on 23 September, 2011

9. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that since the area of the shop was less than assured by the appellants, therefore, the respondent was entitled to the refund of the amount charged in excess by the appellants. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "K.H.K. Rangam v. Tycoon Builders Madras & Anr." 2006(1) CPR 50 (NC). Hence it was prayed that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jai Shankar Rawat vs Starlite Spintech Ltd. on 5 September, 2013

The order of the National Commission relied by the appellant/complainant in K.H.K. Rangam Vs. Tycoon Builders, Madras reported in 2006(2) ALT 1 (NC) (CPA) was rendered as long back as on 11.11.2005 and that too interest @ 12% has been awarded in that case based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Dist. Forum has rightly awarded interest @ 9% p.a., and also awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony. The Honble Supreme Court time and again held that once interest is awarded again the question of awarding compensation does not arise, and that the Courts while awarding interest should bear in mind the existing bank rate of interest. As stated earlier the respondent/opposite party did not prefer any appeal. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1