Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.Kulkarni, Advait M.Sethna
Samarth Constructions through its Partner – Appellant
Versus
Pushpa Chandrakant Mate – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Advait M. Sethna, J.
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for the following substantive relief :-
“(iii) To pass orders setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 19/08/2024 (at Exhibit-A) passed by the NCDRC in First Appeal No. 771 of 2021; and further pass order that the main Complaint No. 516 of 2016 be remanded back to SCDRC, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nashik for reconsideration while allowing the Appellants to file its written statement before the SCDRC in the said complaint and the said complaint be re-heard on merits.”
2. The petitioners have preferred this petition assailing the order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission, New Delhi (‘National Commission’ for short) dated 19 August 2024 (‘Impugned Judgment’ for short) which dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. The dispute in these proceedings relates to alleged deficiency of service under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘The Act’ for short), arising out of delay by the petitioner in handing over the respondent’s flat within the agreed time frame as claimed by the respondent, a flat purchaser.
Factual Matrix
3. The r
The Consumer Protection Act mandates timely appeals, and failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay undermines consumer rights and the Act's objectives.
(1) Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute to prescribes and courts have no power to extend period of limitation on equitabl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
