Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)Article 54 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
K.Jitender Das, vs The Executive Engineer, Rws & S ... on 26 February, 2015
In K.Jitender Das v. Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division3,
following the above judgment of the Supreme Court, one of us
(CVNR,J), at paragraph-7, observed as under.
M/S Narne Construction P.Ltd.Etc.Etc vs Union Of India & Ors.Etc on 10 May, 2012
In Narne Constructions (P) Ltd., Secunderabad vs. Union of
India4, a Division Bench of this Court held that the liability to register
sale deed being the part of duty towards the purchaser, refusal to do the
same amounts to deficiency of service and therefore, an aggrieved party
in a case of refusal to register sale deed has his own choice either to
invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum or to approach the civil
Court. It was further held that Section 3 of the Act provides that the
provisions of the Act are in addition and not in derogation of the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Hence, we do
not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the
opposite parties that the fora below had no jurisdiction to entertain the
complaints filed by the complainants. At any rate, even in equity also the
4 2011(1) ALD 342 (DB)
CVNR,J & GSP,J
10 W.P.Nos.3630, 4191, 4220, 4254,
4640, 4641 and 4650 of 2011
02.08.2018
complainants are entitled to the relief as granted by the District Forum
viz., refund of the full sale consideration admittedly received by the
opposite parties and award of compensation, in view of unjust denial of
flats to the complainants by the opposite parties.
Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2008
5. The State Commission has specifically dealt with both the
objections relating to the limitation as well as jurisdiction. As regards the
aspect of limitation, the State Commission held that Article 54 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Limitation Act') stipulates that the
CVNR,J & GSP,J
4 W.P.Nos.3630, 4191, 4220, 4254,
4640, 4641 and 4650 of 2011
02.08.2018
cause of action would commence from the date that was fixed for
performance of contract and if no such date is fixed, the cause of action
would commence when the plaintiff has notice that performance is
refused. It was further observed that on fact the opposite parties did not
refuse performance of the agreements of sale and therefore, by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that the complaints are barred by
limitation. With regard to jurisdiction, the State Commission relied upon
the judgment in Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd.1
and rejected the plea of the opposite parties. The State Commission has,
accordingly, confirmed the common order of the District Forum.
Section 24A in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989
In A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies2, the Supreme
Court, at paragraph-12, held as under.
1