Booking for Profit Motive - Several cases highlight the defendants' plea that the complainants booked units solely to earn profit, asserting they do not qualify as 'Consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Despite this, courts have examined the nature of the transactions and the rights of the complainants. ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"]
Failure to Discharge Contractual Obligations and Deficiency in Service - Courts consistently find that Sahara Prime City Limited and its affiliates failed to deliver possession, complete construction, or execute sale deeds as promised, constituting deficiency in service and breach of contractual obligations. ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"]
Prohibition Orders and Restrictions - The Sahara Group has been restricted from parting with or handing over possession of properties in certain projects, notably by court orders, impacting the delivery of units to consumers. However, no Supreme Court order explicitly prohibits the transfer in all cases, which courts consider when adjudicating claims. ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"]
Claims for Possession, Compensation, and Refund - The complainants primarily seek vacant possession, compensation for delays, or refund of their payments, arguing Sahara failed to fulfill its contractual commitments. Courts have partly or fully allowed these claims based on evidence of non-completion and non-delivery. ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"]
Legal Orders and Precedents - Several judgments have recognized deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by Sahara Prime City Limited, emphasizing the company's obligation to deliver units and uphold contractual promises. Orders have included directions for compensation and specific performance. ["Anju Vinod Saraswat v. Sahara Prime City Limited - Delhi"], Sadhana and Ors vs Sahara Prime City Limited (2017), Sanjay Kumar Airen vs Sahara Prime City Limited (2017), Sahara India Parivar vs Rajinder Kumar (2018)
Consumer Status and Investment Argument - Courts have debated whether investors seeking profit fall outside the 'Consumer' definition. Nevertheless, many judgments have still considered the transactions as consumer contracts under the Act, especially when the primary issue is non-delivery and deficiency in service. ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"], ["RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad"]
Analysis and Conclusion
Courts across multiple cases have consistently held Sahara Prime City Limited liable for deficiency in service due to failure to deliver units and breach of contractual obligations. Despite the company's stance that investors seeking profit are not 'Consumers,' the judiciary has largely recognized the transactions as consumer-oriented, especially when consumers have paid consideration and seek possession or refunds. Orders have included directions for delivering possession, paying compensation for delays, and addressing unfair trade practices. The presence of court restrictions on handing over properties influences these judgments, but does not absolve Sahara from liability where contractual breaches are evident.
References:- Various NCDRC orders (e.g., RAJENDRA SHRIRAMJI MAHADOLE vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Allahabad_NCDRC_CC_18_38, 16_143, 16_144, 15_106, 15_102, 19_41, 16_101, 16_101, 266_2014)- Supreme Court and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission judgments (e.g., Anju Vinod Saraswat v. Sahara Prime City Limited - Delhi)- Precedents on deficiency and unfair trade practices involving Sahara Prime City Limited
