Skip to main content

NCDRC asks construction firm to pay over Rs 1 crore to doctor

The apex consumer commission has asked a real estate company to pay over Rs one crore to a doctor for its failure to give him possession of an apartment, saying that it was making profits at the expense of others.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, presided by Justice J M Malik, asked Mumbai-based Orbit Corporation Ltd to pay Rs 1,17,11,340 to a doctor, holding that this was a case of unfair trade practice.

The company had rejected the doctor's claim seeking refund of his money and compensation, citing delay due to several problems which cropped up in the process.

The bench, also comprising its member S M Kantikar, said, "We are unable to countenance all these feckless arguments. One must know the significance of a home. It is well said: Home, the spot of earth, supremely blest; A dearer, sweeter spot, than all the rest...

"It is difficult to fathom, why the consumer should suffer for his (company) deliberate inaction, negligence and passivity. It is clear that Opposite Party (OP) succeeded in its attempt to feather its own nest, i.E., to make profits for itself, often, at the expense of others."

It said, "As the firm is unable to give the premises in dispute, therefore, it is directed to return the sum of Rs 1,16,11,340 to the complainant...With litigation charges in the sum of Rs one lakh."

Dr N Y Kachawalla had told the commission that he had paid Rs 1,16,11,340 to the company in 2009 for an apartment in Mumbai, but despite repeated requests it did not give him the possession while it had assured it will be given by August, 2013.

He claimed that after he demanded the interest for the pending period, the company refused to pay so and also to refund the amount paid by him.

 Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ncdrc-asks-construction-firm-to-pay-over-rs-1-crore-to-doctor_953823.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more