Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ JAIN, J
NAVIN M. RAHEJA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
DINESH GOYAL & ORS. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. multiple complaints were filed for delay and refunds. (Para 1 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. jurisdiction and composition of benches were pivotal issues. (Para 14 , 19 , 22 , 51) |
| 3. judicial and technical members can serve on consumer commission benches. (Para 47 , 50) |
JUDGMENT
MANOJ JAIN, J
1. The present petition, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, takes exceptions to two orders passed by Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short „National Commission‟).
2. First such order is order dated 26.08.2022 whereby a batch of 35 complaints filed against M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. has been allowed. The other is order dated 03.02.2025 whereby, in execution emanating from one such complaint, certain directions have been issued to the Directors of JD Company.
3. Let me narrate the background facts, in brief.
4. Several complainants approached National Commission with complaints under Section 21 read with Section 12 (1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. Some were seeking possession with compensation for delayed-delivery while others were seeking refund of the amount paid by them towards the sale of units in question.
5. 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
