Skip to main content

Period of limitation starts from the date defect comes to the notice of the Complainant

In Rajendra Kumar Poddar vs M/S. Subham Constructions, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground of having been filed after two years from the date of cause of action and therefore appeal before NCDRC.

Learned counsel stated that the possession was taken on 18.05.2012 and after taking the possession the complainant noticed that there were several defects in the construction and the complainant was pursuing the matter with the opposite parties.  The opposite parties were giving assurance for rectification of the defects, however, when no rectification was done the complaint was filed on 08.01.2015. The State Commission has considered the period of limitation from the date of possession whereas the fact is that complainant was pursuing with the opposite parties and it was continuing cause of action as all the defects were not noticed initially and later on more defects came to the light, therefore, the limitation should be counted from the date of awareness of all the defects mentioned in the complaint.  All the defects were noticed in the month of January, 2013 only and therefore, the complaint filed in January, 2015 was within the limitation period. 

The NCDRC agreed with the State Commission which had referred to Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries wherein it was held that the consumer forum has to decide the issue of limitation first and complaint will not be admitted if it is filed after two year beyond the date of cause of action.  Once the possession was taken on 18.05.2012, it cannot be said that the defects did not come to the notice of the complainant even within a period of one or two months.  First of all, the complainant would have taken the possession only after prior inspection of the unit.  However, even if that was not done, atleast the complainant should have known the defects while taking possession or atleast within a period of one or two months.

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
3 comments
Read more