Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)
Varsha Wadhawan vs Arn Infrastructure on 11 May, 2026 cites

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

In Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise, this Court held that possession offered without the requisite completion certificate is illegal, and a purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession in such circumstances. The Court in that case held: (SCC pp. 200-201, paras 20-23) of NCDRC "20. Finally while, we dealing cannot with resist the but appellants comment' on contention the perfunctory that it approach was the duty of the respondents to apply for and obtain the completion certificate from KMC and that the respondents ought to have been directed to act in accordance with law. The observation made by NCDRC of the respondents having successfully argued that it was not their fault, that no completion certificate of the project could be obtained, is clearly contrary to the statutory provisions.
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