DEV RAJ, PADMA PANDEY
ANITA AGGARWAL – Appellant
Versus
SUSHMA BUILDTECH LTD. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dev Raj, Presiding Member.—In brief, the facts of the case, are that believing the version of the Opposite Parties and the sample flat shown, the complainants booked a residential apartment i.e. duplex Penthouse No.B-1202 on 12th Floor in Tower B measuring 1910 sq. ft;. (super area) with terrace area in the project of the Opposite Parties, namely, Sushma Elite Cross, located at Gazipur, M.C. Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali, Punjab, basic sale price whereof was Rs.50,19,950/-. Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.07.2012 (Annexure C-3) was executed between the parties. The complainants obtained housing loan of Rs.35 Lacs from Bank of India, Chandigarh and Tripartite Agreement dated 06.08.2012 (Annexure C-4) was executed. Payments were to be made directly to the Opposite Parties based on construction linked payment plan. The complainants paid a total amount of Rs.51,70,594/- including service tax and late payment penalty interest (Annexure C-5). It was stated that allotment letter was handed over on 09.08.2011 whereas one sided Apartment Buyer's Agreement was executed on 10.07.2012. It was further stated that as the complainants are residing in rented flat and pay
C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd.
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community Vs. State of Maharashtra
Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.K. Modi 1996 6 SCC 385
National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy
Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha Dead Through LRs.
Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, criticized, or otherwise treated as bad law. The descriptions provided do not include any language or references to subsequent judicial treatment that would suggest such a status. Therefore, based solely on the information given, there are no cases identified as bad law.
Followed/Authoritative:
Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society VS M. Lalitha (Dead) through Lrs. - 2004 1 Supreme 326: Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between members and cooperative society in view of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act.
FAIR AIR ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. VS N. K. MODI - 1996 6 Supreme 745: The Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy to consumers, in addition to arbitration and civil action, and the Forums created under the Act have the discretion to stay proceedings or proceed with the matter, considering the object of the Act and the need to provide inexpensive and expeditious consumer service.
Cci Chambers Co-op. Hsg. Society LTD. VS Development Credit Bank LTD. - 2003 6 Supreme 513: The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Consumer Protection Act is to be determined is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry as mere complication of facts or of law cannot be a ground for the denial of hearing by a forum under the Act.
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION VS M. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 44: Farmers purchasing foundation seeds from NSCL growing entire crop to and selling entire crop back to NSCL are consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and entitled to its protection.
These cases appear to articulate or reaffirm principles of jurisdiction and consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, with no indication of adverse treatment or subsequent overruling.
SKYPAK COURIERS, LTD. VS TATA CHEMICALS, LTD. - Consumer (2000): The main legal point established is that the Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act do not have the jurisdiction to refer disputes for consensual adjudication without explicit authorization under the Act.
This case's treatment is not explicitly discussed in the list, and the language suggests it states a legal proposition rather than a judicial ruling that has been overruled or criticized. Without additional context, its treatment remains neutral or authoritative, but it could potentially be subject to further judicial review or interpretation in subsequent cases. Therefore, it is categorized as uncertain.
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.