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

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.

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.

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...