Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.91 seconds)
Smart Asset Services India Private ... vs Ananth Parimi on 22 November, 2023 cites

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs M/S Unique Shanti Developers on 14 November, 2019

10.    Supreme Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs. Unique Shanti Developers, (2020) 2 SCC 265, held that (i) ordinarily "commercial purpose" is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to business transactions between the commercial entities; (ii) the purchase of goods or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit generating activity; (iii) the identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser/or their beneficiary; (iv) If it is found that dominant purpose behind purchasing the goods or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of "earning livelihood by means of self employment" need not be looked into.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 36 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document

Kavit Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate ... on 12 February, 2015

11.    Ordinarily the plot and the flat were booked for personal purpose. It is only when by misusing the power of attorney appellant-1 has entered into supplementary agreement and extended the period of possession, then the communications were made between the parties. From the communication, it is clear that due to inordinate delay the complainant wants to refund of his money and his purpose was not to resale and earn profit, as such it cannot be said that the complainant was not a consumer. Further appellant-2 in its written statement filed before the State Commission admitted that it gave an option to the respondent either to avail its service to resale the property to take possession and the respondent opted to take possession. Supreme Court in Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31, observed that the onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to the Opposite Party, which the appellants have failed to discharge by filing any evidence.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 1050 - Full Document

M/S. Fortune Infrastructure (Now Known ... vs Trevor Dlima on 12 March, 2018

12.    As per original agreement dated 01.04.2016, possession was to be handed over within a period of 12 months from the date of the agreement (i.e. on or before 01.04.2017).  There is a dispute between the parties relating to genuineness of the supplementary agreement dated 25.03.2017 granting extension of 12 months to the opposite parties. The respondent has not produced any evidence to prove that the supplementary agreement was executed without his consent. According to supplementary agreement dated 25.03.2017, possession was to be handed over latest by 25.03.2018. The appellants failed to fulfil their obligation by completing the construction and delivering the possession to the complainant. Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. v. Trevor D'Lima & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 442, held that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him/her, and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, along with compensation. Judgment of this Commission in C/307/2013 dated 03.11.202 relied upon by the counsel for the appellants is distinguishable on facts as in that case the complainant made investment as a partner in the money and sought refund of that investment.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 103 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. vs D.S. Dhanda Etc. Etc. on 10 May, 2019

13.    The State Commission has rightly allowed the complaint holding the appellants guilty for deficiency in service and directing them to refund the amount with interest @ 14% p.a. as per agreement. However, Rs.5 lacs as compensation towards mental agony, is not justified. Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, (2020) 16 SCC 318 held that the compensation cannot be awarded in multiple heads. As such award of compensation of Rs.5 lacs is liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 143 - H Gupta - Full Document
1