Legal Reference Library

In Prerna Dewan Vs. IREO Fiveriver, the Opposite Party has stated that possession of the plot, in question, could not be offered to the complainant, within the period stipulated in the Agreement for want of development work at the site, on account of the reasons beyond its control i.e. on account of force majeure circumstances like delay in sanction of layout plans by the Competent Authorities; delay in grant of NOC from the Irrigation Department; delay in clearance and delayed grant of licence for additional land measuring 10.594 acres plus 18.343 acres, by the Competent Authorities, as the area was situated in a squatted small pockets; delay in approvals for environment clearance by the Competent Authorities; and also stay on construction on the land, in question, granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission rejected the above contention by stating It was the bounden duty of the opposite party, to get approved the final la...

The STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,MUMBAI in Bank Of Baroda vs Mr. Jayprakash R. Kushwaha & Ors, has held that failure to inform an applicant about rejection of his loan application constitutes deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. The Bench comprising Justice A.P. Bhangale (President) and Mr. D.R. Shirasao (Judicial Member) thereby confirmed the order of the Thane District Forum, awarding  Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 10,000 as costs for deficiency in service. “We are of the opinion that as and when Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 had come to know that title of Opposite Party No.3 is not clear and letter of transfer of flat given to them by the complainant is false and fabricated it was incumbent on Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to inform this fact to the complainant… Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service given by the Opposite Party. Nos.1 and 2 to the complainant and hence complainant is enti...

The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld an order of the state commission, which had ordered the arrest of officials of a real estate for failing to hand over flats or make refunds on time. In the instant case, in spite of the proclamation published against the director and general manager of the company under Section 82 CrPC, they did not appear before the state commission, and hence, were declared as proclaimed offenders.  The state commission then ordered their arrest, so as to take proceedings against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This order by the state commission was assailed before the national commission. The national commission observed that under the Consumer Protection Act, compliance of the order passed by the consumer fora is made by following procedure under Section 25 or Section 27 of the said Act. It is not for the judgment debtor to choose,which manner of execution is to be followed. It was the duty of t...

Two Unitech   Ltd Managing Directors, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, were awarded three years' imprisonment for non-compliance of order issued in 2015 by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CSCDRC). The punitive measure was awarded after the real estate giant failed to give possessions of a residential unit in Mohali to two Delhi-based clients even after making the payment on time. Then, the commission sought explanation from the builder and asked them to settle dues of Rs 53 lakhs. Two Unitech Ltd Managing Directors, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, were awarded three years' imprisonment for non-compliance of order issued in 2015 by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CSCDRC). Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/unitech-mds-get-3-yrsjail-as-company-fails-to-deliver-flats_6453641.html?utm_source=ref_article