Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Pramod Kumar vs Manohar Infrastructure & ... on 6 July, 2021 cites

Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. vs Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 5 July, 2018

Now coming to the objection taken to the effect that application seeking permission to file joint complaint has not been filed by the complainants, as such, it is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, it may be stated here that because the plot in question stood purchased jointly by the complainants, they were not required to file any application seeking permission to file a joint complaint. The view taken by this Commission is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission titled as Karnail Singh & 2 Ors. Vs. M/s. Emerald Lands (India) Private Limited & 5 ors., Consumer Case No. 2809 of 2018, decided on 02 Jan 2019, wherein the three complainants who had jointly been allotted plot in a project, moved an application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, which was rejected by it saying that it is wholly misconceived and the complaint was treated to have been filed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 61 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Pioneer Urban Land And Infrastructure ... vs Govindan Raghavan on 2 April, 2019

The above view taken is further supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled a s Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019 and also  i n Fortune Infrastructure Versus Trevor D' Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442 . In the present case also, there has been an inordinate delay in the matter, and still the opposite parties are not sure as to by which date development work will be completed and possession of the plot will be delivered to the complainants and on the other hand still they are saying that the time period for completion of the project could be upto 2022.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 350 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Mrs. Raj Mehta on 24 September, 2004

In the instant case also, if the complainants after making payment of substantial amount equal to more than 80% of the total sale consideration,  did not make remaining payment when they came to know that there was no development at the project site and possession is not expected in the near future or they withheld some part of the payment for some time, on account of the said reasons, they were right in doing so, in view of principle, referred to above, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority (supra).  Objection taken in this regard stands rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 60 - S N Variava - Full Document

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

First, we will deal with the objection taken by the opposite parties, to the effect that the complainants did not fall within the definition of 'consumer', it may be stated here that the objection raised is not supported by any documentary evidence and as such the onus shifts to the opposite parties to establish that the complainants have purchased the plot in question to indulge in 'purchase and sale of plots' as was held by the Hon'ble National  Commission in  Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31 but they failed to discharge their onus. On the other hand, the complainants, in their complaint have clearly stated that the plot in question was purchased by them for their residential purposes. Hence we hold that the complainants are consumers as defined under the Act. In this view of the matter, objection taken by the opposite parties stands rejected.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 1050 - Full Document
1