Pushpa Jagannath Shetty vs Sahaj Ankur Realtors

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 426

SANJAY KAROL, MANMOHAN
Pushpa Jagannath Shetty – Appellant
Versus
Sahaj Ankur Realtors – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yuvrajsinh Solanki, Adv. Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Shyel Trehan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Harbani Shinh, Adv. Mr. Rohan Poddar, Adv. Ms. Shivalika Rudrabatla, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Jain, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - Limitation is not to defeat a substantive right; earnest efforts to secure possession of flats are relevant to limitation computation. (!) - The NCDRC erred by holding the complaint time-barred; the case involves a continuing cause of action due to ongoing efforts and escrow arrangements. (!) (!) - The Court held that the complaint was within time and restored it to its status, directing expeditious adjudication by NCDRC. (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

ORDER :

1. This appeal is under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and is directed against the judgment dated 14th March 2023 passed in Consumer Case No.238 of 2019 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi¹[hereinafter NCDRC].

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents are a partnership firm that owned the building named "Madhav Baug" in the village of Andheri, Mumbai. The complainants were tenants in two flats on the ground floor in Building-A. The former decided to demolish this building and construct a new one and, in furtherance thereof, executed, a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement dated 20th September 2013, allotting Flat No. 801, carpet area 700 sq. ft. on the 8th floor of the B-Wing of the new building. The agreement provided 24 months from the date of the issue of the commencement certificate, along with a grace period of 6 months to complete such construction. The proposed redevelopment however could not be completed in the stipulated time, as such, on 10th January 2015, the respondents executed an “Indemnity- cum-Undertaking” to allot two flats numbered 301 and 302 having carpet area of 650

Click Here to Read the rest of this document