Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.77 seconds)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.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
M/S Treaty Construction vs M/S Ruby Tower Co Op Hsg. Society Ltd. on 19 July, 2019
27. 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
ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 18
CC/278/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026
MR. DEEPAK VERMA & ANR. VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Section 403 in Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
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."