Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.42 seconds)Section 3 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-Operative vs M. Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors on 11 December, 2003
"In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra. In a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997
"A correct perspective relating to the question whether time is not of the essence of the contract in contracts relating to immovable property, is given by this court in K.S. Vidyanadam and Others vs. Vairavan - (1997) 3 SCC 1 (by Jeevan Reddy J. who incidentally was a member of the Constitution Bench in Chand Rani). This Court observed:
Sarbjit Singh vs M/S Puma Realtors Private Limited on 14 September, 2016
This question has already been elaborately dealt with by this Commission in case titled 'Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited', IV (2016) CPJ 126. Paras 25 to 35 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-
M/S. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd.& Anr vs N.K.Modi on 20 August, 1996
28. Many a times, by making reference to the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, in the past also, such objections were raised and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act, in the cases of Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233, Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, ( Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013) etc., came to a conclusion that the remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, is an independent and additional remedy and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement, to settle disputes, will not debar the Consumer Foras, to entertain the complaints, filed by the consumers.
Kavit Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate ... on 12 February, 2015
The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. It may be stated here that the mere bald objection of the opposite party that the complainant had purchased the plot, by way of investment, to gain huge profits, by selling the same, as and when there was escalation in prices, does not carry any weight and is liable to be rejected. Nothing contrary has been proved by the opposite party, by placing on record, any document, to strengthen its plea. Even otherwise, the mere fact that it was a residential plot, which was allotted, in favour of the complainant, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by the complainant. Furthermore, still the complainant is seeking possession of the plot, in question. Even in the legal notice dated 10.08.2016, sent to the opposite party, request for delivery of possession of plot and execution of sale deed, alongwith other relief was made by the complainant. On the other hand, there is nothing on the record, that the complainant is a property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. Under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose.