Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)
Ansal Crown Heights Flats Buyers ... vs Ansal Crown Infrabuild India Pvt. Ltd. on 28 February, 2022 cites

Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016

So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction where the value of the goods or services as the case may be and the compensation claimed exceeds Rs.1 Crore.  As held by a three Members Bench of this Commission in  CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,  decided on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such a case would mean the sale amount agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the developer, which has been held to lay down the law correctly on the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and the sale consideration which was agreed between the Parties for buying the goods or hiring or availing the services is relevant for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in cases of refund also by a larger Bench of 5 Members of this Commission in "CC No. 1703 of 2018, Renu Singh vs. Experion Developers Private Limited" and other connected matters" decided on 26.10.2021.  In the present case, the agreed sale consideration was Rs.56,49,765/-.  If even a part of the compensation claimed by the complainants is added to the said sale consideration, the aggregate would be much above Rs.1 Crore.  Therefore, it would be difficult to say that this Commission does not possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 589 - Full Document

Renu Singh vs Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 29 June, 2018

So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction where the value of the goods or services as the case may be and the compensation claimed exceeds Rs.1 Crore.  As held by a three Members Bench of this Commission in  CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,  decided on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such a case would mean the sale amount agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the developer, which has been held to lay down the law correctly on the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and the sale consideration which was agreed between the Parties for buying the goods or hiring or availing the services is relevant for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in cases of refund also by a larger Bench of 5 Members of this Commission in "CC No. 1703 of 2018, Renu Singh vs. Experion Developers Private Limited" and other connected matters" decided on 26.10.2021.  In the present case, the agreed sale consideration was Rs.56,49,765/-.  If even a part of the compensation claimed by the complainants is added to the said sale consideration, the aggregate would be much above Rs.1 Crore.  Therefore, it would be difficult to say that this Commission does not possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next