Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.84 seconds)
Navneet Rastogi vs Arn Infra. Pvt.Ltd. on 11 May, 2026 cites

Debashis Sinha vs M/S R.N.R Enterprise on 9 February, 2023

24. From the aforesaid dicta, the well-settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments such as Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise (2023) and Treaty Construction vs. Ruby Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2019), wherein it was held that the failure on the part of a real estate developer to obtain mandatory completion certificates and occupancy certificates constitutes a clear and actionable deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Consumer Protection Act, 2019). The Hon'ble NCDRC and Hon'ble Supreme Court have consistently held that such failure amounts to a breach of statutory obligations imposed by regulatory authorities, and the buyers are entitled to appropriate relief in such circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - S R Bhat - Full Document

M/S Treaty Construction vs M/S Ruby Tower Co Op Hsg. Society Ltd. on 19 July, 2019

24. From the aforesaid dicta, the well-settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments such as Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise (2023) and Treaty Construction vs. Ruby Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2019), wherein it was held that the failure on the part of a real estate developer to obtain mandatory completion certificates and occupancy certificates constitutes a clear and actionable deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Consumer Protection Act, 2019). The Hon'ble NCDRC and Hon'ble Supreme Court have consistently held that such failure amounts to a breach of statutory obligations imposed by regulatory authorities, and the buyers are entitled to appropriate relief in such circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

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

"19. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the said Flats were purchased for commercial purpose is not supported by any documentary evidence as the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the Complainants has purchased the same to indulge in 'purchase and sale of flats' as was held by this Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence hold that the Complainants is 'Consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 1050 - Full Document
1   2 Next