KULDIP SINGH, R.M.SAHAI
Lucknow Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
M. K. Gupta – Respondent
Judgment
R. M. SAHAI, J. - The question of law that arises for consideration in these appeals, directed against orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (referred hereinafter as National Commission), New Delhi is if the statutory authorities such as Lucknow Development Authority or Delhi Development Authority or Bangalore Development Authority constituted under State Acts to carry on planned development of the cities in the State are amenable to Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for any act or omission relating to housing activity such as delay in delivery of possession of the houses to the allottees, non-completion of the flat within the stipulated time, or defective and faulty construction etc. Another aspect of this issue is if the housing activity carried on by the statutory authority or private builder or contractor came within the purview of the Act only after its amendment by the Ordinance No. 24 in 1993 or the Commission could entertain a complaint for such violations even before.
2. How the dispute arose in different appeals is not of any consequence except for two appeals which shall be adverted later, for determin
referred to : Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim
State of M.P. v. Rameshwar Rathod
relied on : State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam
Lala Bishambar Nath v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra
Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan
distinguished : Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.