SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.M.KANTIKAR, DINESH SINGH
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
D. S. Dhanda – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Ms. Seema Sundd, Mr. R. Soundar Rajan and Mr. Aditya P. N. Singh, Advocates (in FA/853/2016)
For the Respondents:Ms. Priyanka Dutta, Mr. Sudhir Bisla and Ms. Nainee Jha, Advocates (in FA/854/2016; 855/2016; 1308/2016; 1310/2016; 1311/2016)
For the Respondents: NEMO (in FA/1144/2016)
For the Respondents:Mr. Anant Agarwal, Ms. Shweta Sirohi and Ms. Ritika Khanna, Advocates (in FA/1237/2016; 1239/2016 & 1240/2016)
For the Respondents:Ms. Pooja Vohra, Advocate (in FA/1306/2016)
For both Respondents:Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Mr. Anant Aggarwal and Ms. Ritika Khanna, Advocates (in FA/1307/2016)
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Sharda and Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocates (in FA/1309/2016)
For the Respondents:Mr. Navneet Kumar and Mr. Vikas Bhadana, Advocates (in FA/1312/2016)
For the Respondents: In person (in FA/1314/2016
For the Respondents:Mr. Surender Deswal and Mr. Prashant V., Advocates (in FA/1356/2016)
For the Respondents:Mr. Amarjeet Singh and Mr. Sudhir Kathpalia, Advocates

ORDER

A fair number of first appeals (f.a.s.) filed by the appellant – builder co. are pending before various benches of this Commission, including this bench. The instant case relates to 16 f.a.s. filed by the appellant – builder co. under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Commission’s Orders (6 nos.) dated 02.06.2016, 02.08.2016, 17.08.2016, 29.08.2016, 01.09.2016 and 12.09.2016 whereby the State Commission directed the builder – co. to hand over physical possession of the units as per the terms and conditions of the agreements; execute and get registered the sale-deeds; pay compensation; and pay cost of litigation to the respondents – complainants.

2. We heard the learned counsels for the builder co. and the complainants, and perused the material on record.

3. During arguments on 24.10.2018 the learned counsels for the builder co. raised an objection that this bench was constituted of non-judicial members and as such was not competent in law to adjudicate the issues.

4. We feel it appropriate to briefly put the question of competence in persp












































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top