Back
M. G. PRIYADARSINI
Safeway Infra – Appellant
Versus
Surender Reddy Devidi – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By means of present revision petition, the revision petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in EA No. 5 of 2022 in CC No. 12 of 2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak at Sanga Reddy District (for brevity hereinafter termed as “the District Commission”) and to allow this revision.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned “the District Commission.”
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant Nos. 1 & 2, who are the husband and wife respectively, jointly signed an agreement of sale with the opposite party on 18.12.2014 for purchase of an open plot, bearing plot No. 345 admeasuring 205.77 square yards, at Symphony Park Homes, Patancheruvu Village, GHMC Circle-22 and also to develop and construct a villa comprising of ground plus 1st floor with a salable area of 2203 square feet as per terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement of sale. The complainants took a housing loan from TATA Capital Housing Private Limited to a tune of Rs.41,91,250/-. On 31.12.2014 the opposite party registered the said plot in the name of the complainants afte
The court ruled that execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act must follow statutory appeal routes, and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is not applicable.
An unregistered agreement does not invalidate a consumer complaint; service of notice is deemed valid under the applicable law, and the appropriate legal remedy is an appeal, not a revision.
No revision petition against the order passed in appeal filed under section 27-A of Act is maintainable before national commission.
The State Consumer Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering re-conveyance, conflicting with ongoing civil litigation and statutory limitations on review powers.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act and the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of....
Limited Jurisdiction – Commission’s revisional Jurisdiction is limited. Since there were concurrent findings of fact regarding the deficiency of service by both lower courts, and no jurisdictional er....
(1) Jurisdictional Excess – The NCDRC observed that the District Commission prima facie exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a mandatory direction for payment in an application filed by the consumer ....
(1) CPC – It is pertinent to note that, S.13(4) of the old Act as well as S.38(9) of the new Act does not have any mention as to the applicability of S.9A of the C.P.Code to the proceedings before th....
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
