Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Ludhiana Improvement Trust Through Its ... vs Lueena Puri Wife Of Anil Puri on 9 January, 2026
cites
Section 41 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Dhanjit Singh Sandhu on 14 March, 2014
Further relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "State of
Punjab v. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu" 2014 (15) SCC 144, stating that the
defaulting allottees of valuable plots cannot be allowed to approbate and
reprobate by first agreeing to abide by terms and conditions of allotment
and later seeking to deny their liability as per the agreed terms. Further
argued that the original allottee had already paid the amount of
Rs.28,125/- to the OPs raised on account of non-construction charges vide
receipt dated 06.09.2004, therefore, the present Complainant (Transferee)
is also liable to pay the non-construction charges as demanded by the
OPs. As the OPs had not produced any document to show that the original
allottee had already deposited the amount on account of non-construction
charges with the OPs, therefore, such plea of the OPs cannot be accepted
First Appeal No. 592 of 2023 11
in the absence of specific proof on record. Also, no such plea was raised
by the OPs before the District Commission or in the Appeal filed before this
Commission.
Estate Officer, Puda, vs Tripta Rani Puri on 13 February, 2014
18. To contradict the above findings by giving the justification that
the demand of non-construction charges had been rightly raised, the OPs
had relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission i.e.
"PUDA Vs. Tripta Rani Puri", 2015 (1) CPJ Page 412, "Improvement
Trust Barnala Vs. Meena Modi", 2011 (2) CPJ 123 that the non-
construction charges demanded on account of statutory Rules cannot be
said an act of 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice'.
1