Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)
M/S. Royal Build Square Pvt. Ltd & Anr. vs Gopal Memani on 24 June, 2022 cites

Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. vs D.S. Dhanda Etc. Etc. on 10 May, 2019

"17.  Though the 1986 Act empowers the authorities to award compensation for any loss or injury including building damages but the order of NCDRC or that of SCDRC of awarding compensation is without any foundation being laid down by the complainant on judicially recognized principles and is by rule of thumb.  Therefore, we find that grant of compensation under various heads granted by the NCDRC cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 143 - H Gupta - Full Document

Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016

12.       In most of the cases of refund, this Commission is awarding interest on the deposited amount. In my view, if flat is not built, there should be no question of offering the market price or on the basis of ready reckoner as the money deposited has not grown to the market value of the flat. Earlier in some cases, in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction, sometimes, the present market value was taken to be the value of goods and services, but a larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC), has decided that the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction shall be the total consideration paid or promised to be paid at the time of purchase. Thus, the concept of market value for determining value of goods and services for deciding pecuniary jurisdiction has not been accepted by this Commission. In analogy, it seems reasonable to say that the concept of market value cannot be sustained in the cases for refund.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 589 - Full Document

Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991

18.  This Court in a judgment reported as Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Others vs. G.C. Roy examined the question as to whether an arbitrator has the power to award interest pendent lite.  It was held that a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation which may be called interest, compensation or damaged. Thus, keeping in view the said principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the amount of the interest is the compensation to the beneficiary deprived of the use of the investment made by the complainant. Therefore, such interest will take into its ambit, the consequences of delay in not handing over his possession. In fact, we find that the learned SCDRC as well as NCDRC has awarded compensation under different heads on account of singular default of not handing over possession. Such award under various heads in respect of the same default is not sustainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 639 - K N Singh - Full Document
1