Skip to main content

Consumer cannot suffer on account of disputes between company directors

The Chandigarh State Commission, while allowing a complaint against Premium Acres Infratech Private limited, ruled that a consumer cannot be made to suffer on account of inter-se disputes between company directors.

The complainants, Sundeep Singh and his wife, Jagpuneet Kaur of Fatehgarh Sahib, bought a villa at "The Courtyard Villas," a housing project of TDI City in Sector 110, Mohali, from then directors, Amit Jain and Sanjay Jain. They paid the directors but later, both were removed. The new director who took over refused to give them procession. In his reply, he filed that possession could not be given because the complainants did not make timely payments.

Current director of the company, PS Sehgal contended that Sanjay Jain, ex-director issued forged receipts and other documents to the customers, on account of which several criminal and civil cases were pending and therefore the court should not rely on the said documents in favour of the consumers.

However, consumer possession of the Villa was to be given in 24 months, failing which the company would be liable to pay a penalty of Rs 15,000 per month for the period of delay. After hearing all the parties, the Commission held that possession of the unit in question was not delivered to complainants by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed. The complainants are thus entitled to compensation/penalty of Rs 15,000 per month, for the period of delay, per month, from March 4, 2013 (promised date).

The Commission directed the company and its directors to hand over legal physical possession of Villa No 34, complete in all respects, to the complainants, within three months on payment of Rs 9,17,110. The company is also to pay compensation of Rs 1,00,000 to complainants on account of deficiency in rendering service, adoption of unfair trade practice, mental agony and physical harassment and Rs 20,000 as legal costs.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Realty-firm-to-pay-up-for-deficient-service/articleshow/47089574.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil