Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
M/S Primos Builders vs Anant Shripad Kamat on 20 February, 2020 cites

Marine Container Services South Pvt. ... vs Go Go Garments on 23 January, 1998

21. The Forum has held that under the said agreement it was the obligation of the OP to form the Co-operative Society but the OP diverted itself from proceeding ahead with the same. The contention of the OP is that there was no obligation, under the said agreement, on the part of the OP to constitute a Co-operative Society and that clause 24 clearly stated that the purchasers would constitute themselves into a co-operative society. In fact, said clause 24 of the agreement stipulates that the purchasers, etc. may form themselves into a co-operative society, etc. Ld. Counsel for the OP has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Marine Container Service South Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Go Go Garments" (AIR 1999 SC 80), wherein it has been held that the Law of Contract is a basic law and has to be followed even by the Consumer Court. There is no dispute with regard to the above position of law. It is nobody's case that the law mandates formation of the Co-operative Housing Society. It is seen that there is no mandate in the clause 24 of the said agreement. The word "may" and the words "but subject to the terms of this agreement", therein are relevant. We cannot read the clause 24, in isolation. Clause 27 of the said agreement specifically and unambiguously provides that it shall be at the discretion of the OP to decide whether a Co- operative Society should be got registered or formed. Thus, the end power whether to form and register a Co-operative Society or not is in the hands of the OP. In case the OP does not wish that there should be the Co-operative Society, then the OP is obliged to execute individual sale deed in favour of the Complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 168 - Full Document

Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 19 December, 1997

25. The OP has made submissions on the effect of the impugned Judgment and Order on the reputation, business rectitude and goodwill of business of the OP and in this regard has relied upon (i).--"Malpe Vishnunath Acharya and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.", reported in (AIR 1998 SC 602); (ii).--"Commissioner Of Income Tax,... Vs. B. C. Srinivasa Setty, etc., etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 261 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Mangilal Soni vs T Marappa & Ors. on 25 March, 2011

13. The OP has further alleged that the Complaint is basically for specific performance of the agreement and hence 13 the Complainant ought to have filed a civil suit. The OP has relied upon the order dated 25/03/2011 of the Hon'ble National Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 252/2010 ("Sri Mangilal Soni Vs. Sri Timmiah and others"). The facts of the case supra are distinguishable. Taking the averments and allegations on their face value, the National Commission was of the opinion that the opposite parties cannot be said to have rendered any service to the complainant, for the deficiency of which the complaint can be filed before a consumer fora. The OP has also relied upon the order dated 04/01/2012 of the State Commission, Pandri, Raipur, in Appeals No. 406, 407 and 408 of 2011, all filed by Sheikh Sultan against different respondents. In the above Appeals, it was found that the dispute regarding the title over the disputed property was already pending before a competent Civil Court and Criminal Complaint was also pending between the parties. There were also allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, etc, in the case supra. The facts of the above Appeals are also totally distinguishable.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981

25. The OP has made submissions on the effect of the impugned Judgment and Order on the reputation, business rectitude and goodwill of business of the OP and in this regard has relied upon (i).--"Malpe Vishnunath Acharya and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.", reported in (AIR 1998 SC 602); (ii).--"Commissioner Of Income Tax,... Vs. B. C. Srinivasa Setty, etc., etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 859 - R S Pathak - Full Document

M/S. Vivekanand Construction Company vs Suraj Ratan Mundra & Anr. on 17 May, 2013

We do not know as to whether the relief of formation of society and in the alternative execution of sale deed in individual name, had become ripe and due for claiming the said relief in the said complaint or was still pre- mature. In the present Complaint, the cause of action is that the OP failed and neglected to form the Co-operative Housing Society and hence the Complainant has prayed for direction to the OP to form the society or in the alternative to execute sale deed in his favour. Such cause of action was not there in the earlier Complaint. With regard to the point of limitation, the Complainant has relied upon the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of "M/S. Vivekanand Construction Company Vs. Suraj Ratan Mundra and another", reported in [(2013) 3 CPJ 111]. In the case supra, the complainants were put in possession of the flat in the year 1999 but despite payment of full agreed price and repeated reminders, the OP did not register the sale deed in 12 their favour, untill the filing of the complaint on 13/12/2010, i.e. almost after 10 years. The Hon'ble National Commission has held that the cause of action which began with delivery of physical possession continues till the deed of conveyance is registered and therefore the question of limitation does not arise. In view of the above, there is no force in the contention of the OP that the Complaint is barred by limitation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next