Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Versus Himanshu Arora, Civil Appeal No.11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the order of the Hon'ble National Commission awarding interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay in delivery of actual physical possession.
Nagesh Maruti Utekar vs Sunstone Developers Joint Venture on 4 May, 2022
Recently also, the Hon'ble National Commission in Anshuman Sinha & Anr. Versus M/s. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Consumer Case No. 1245 of 2016, decided on 01 February 2024 has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
Lata Construction & Ors vs Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah And ... on 12 August, 1999
In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since it has been held above that the respondents-TDI have failed to deliver a legal and valid possession of the plot to the appellant/complainant within a reasonable period after the date of transfer thereof or even thereafter till the date of filing of the consumer complaint, as such, there was a continuing cause of action in favour of the appellant/complainant to file the consumer complaint before the District Commission, in view of law laid down i n Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 an d Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), wherein it was held that when actual physical possession of the residential units/plots is not delivered, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee/buyer. Objection raised in this regard, as such, stands rejected.
Meerut Development Authority vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta on 11 March, 2022
In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since it has been held above that the respondents-TDI have failed to deliver a legal and valid possession of the plot to the appellant/complainant within a reasonable period after the date of transfer thereof or even thereafter till the date of filing of the consumer complaint, as such, there was a continuing cause of action in favour of the appellant/complainant to file the consumer complaint before the District Commission, in view of law laid down i n Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 an d Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), wherein it was held that when actual physical possession of the residential units/plots is not delivered, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee/buyer. Objection raised in this regard, as such, stands rejected.
1