Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs Dlf Universal & Anr on 26 September, 2005
We find support from law laid
down by the Apex Court in "Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF
Universal Limited & another" 2005(7) SCC-791, wherein it has
been held that Section 21(2) Code of Civil Procedure deals with
objection to jurisdiction and it provides that no objection as to
First Appeal No.70 of 2016 8
competence of a court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its
jurisdiction shall be allowed by the appellate or revisional court
unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
Azure Tree Townships Llp vs Srishti Building No. 343 Co-Operative ... on 26 May, 2017
Similarly, reference was made to
First Appeal No.70 of 2016 9
law laid down by the National Commission in "Azure Tree
Township Lip Vs. Srishti Building no.343 Co-operative Housing
Society" 2017(3)CLT-309 wherein complaint by Cooperative
Society was held to be not a consumer dispute, as he has no direct
evidence to that effect.
K.D. Kothiyal vs Phool Kaul & 3 Ors. on 17 February, 2015
The counsel for appellant also relied upon
law laid down by the National Commission in "K.D.Kothiyal Vs.
Phool Kaul & others" 2015(2)CPJ-207 to the effect that the State
Commission was not a proper Forum for deciding complaint in
summary nature against society and complaint was not held
maintainable.
Brig. (Retd.) Kamal Sood vs M/S.Dlf Universal Ltd. on 20 April, 2007
It is against the spirit of PAPRA Act, 1995.
Since, OP received money from complainant without holding proper
approvals and sanctions in its favour and as such it has failed to
provide the efficient service to the complainant. A reference to
documents Ex.OP-7 and Ex.OP-12 proves in this case that sanctions
have been obtained by OP subsequently after receiving membership
and first installment money from complainant on 17.08.2011. The
National Commission has held in "Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal
Limited" 2007(2) CLT-440 that a builder/developer cannot collect
money without holding proper and necessary sanctions. Since, OP
was not holding proper sanctions and approvals for construction of
the flats from the competent authority and as such the receipt of
money by OP from complainant violated the spirit of PAPRA Act,
1995. The contention of counsel for OP that complainant paid the
installments for land only and have not paid any installment for
construction project is no ground to hold that it s pure case of sale
and purchase of immovable property. The OP undertook to provide
the facilities by raising construction and as such the relationship of
consumer and service provider comes into being in this case.
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
The
Apex Court has also held in "Luknow Development Authority Vs.
M.K. Gupta" 2014 (1) SCC-243 that if the authority undertakes to
construct building or allot house or building site to citizen of State
either as amenity or as benefit, then it amounts to rendering of
service and will be covered in the expression service made available
to the potential user. The complainant deposited the installment for
First Appeal No.70 of 2016 13
price for the flat being construction by OP and are covered by the
definition of Consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 12 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Gtm Builder & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs Anuja Goyal on 20 April, 2015
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
have also examined the record of the case. First contention raised
by counsel for appellant before this Commission is that the District
Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint and order
passed by the District Forum is erroneous. On the other hand,
counsel for respondent of this appeal contended that appellant being
OP in the complaint has not raised any specific objection of lack of
pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum in the written reply and as
such the appellant has waived this objection of above jurisdictional
point thereby. We have gone through the written reply filed by
appellant before the District Forum, but find that no specific objection
has been taken by the appellant as OP with regard to lack of
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum by the OP. Since, specific
objection has not been taken by the OP in the written reply with
regard to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum and as
such, as per submission of counsel for complainant, OP is estopped
from challenging it subsequently. Even in the memorandum of
First Appeal No.70 of 2016 7
appeal, OP now appellant has not raised this specific objection for
want of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum and as such in the
absence of any specific plea of OP now appellant to this effect, now
it cannot be raised without any specific objection in this regard. We
find support from law laid down by the National Commission in "GTM
Builder & Promoters Private Limited Vs. Anuja Goyal"