Legal News & Views

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. Article referred: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/unitech-mds-get-3-yrsjail-as-company-fails-to-deliver-flats_6453641.html?utm_source=ref_article

The apex consumer commission has directed real-estate major Unitech Limited to pay over Rs 60 lakh to a Gurgaon resident for not giving him possession of an apartment booked a decade ago at Greater Noida. In its order, the bench also noted that a number of cases against Unitech Ltd were pending before it, including a joint claim by 144 complainants. "The opposite party harassed the complainant by asking for interest on the delayed payment when there was no progress of the project. The complainant fell sick and was admitted in hospitals one after the another... The action of the opposite party qua the complainant is below the belt," the bench said. Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/unitech-to-pay-over-rs-60-lakh-for-failing-to-deliver-apartment_6716701.html?utm_source=ref_article

The apex consumer commission slapped a penalty of 12 percent per annum on real estate major DLF Ltd to be given to 50 buyers for delaying giving possession of their flats in its Panchkula project in Haryana, saying it amounted to "cheating". Article referred: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/ncdrs-asks-dlf-to-pay-12-per-annum-for-delaying-flats_6825361.html?utm_source=ref_article

In a recent case, the district consumer disputes redressal forum directed the postmaster, Manimajra Post Office to refund Rs 29,042 and pay compensation of Rs 20,000 for failing to safely deliver a parcel sent by the sector 37-based complainant through speed post. The forum was of the view that a departmental inquiry should be conducted to ascertain why the parcel reached its destination in a tempered state. In his complaint, Ripan Kumar alleged that he sent medicines worth Rs 29,042 to Critical Drugs Agency, Imphal, Manipur through speed post vide receipt dated June 4, 2015. Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Postal-authorities-accountable-for-tampered-parcels-Consumer-Forum/articleshow/51401077.cms

Delhi High Court has held that when a deaf and dumb witness is under cross-examination, the Court is required to take due care of the fact that vocabulary of such a person is limited as he or she speaks through sign language and it may not be possible for that witness to answer, or in detail explain every answer by sign language and this disability of a limited vocabulary of sign language does not affect either the competence or the credibility of such witness. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/deaf-dumb-witness-disability-limited-vocabulary-sign-language-not-affect-credibility-delhi-hc/

The Supreme Court in M/s Umesh Goel vs.Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. has held that the expression “other proceedings” in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act does not include Arbitration Proceedings and the ban imposed under the said Section to can have no application to Arbitral proceedings as well as the Arbitration Award.Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and C. Nagappan, allowing the appeal against the High Court judgment, also held that Section 35 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 is specifically restricted to treat the Award as a decree of a Court and does not equate Arbitration proceedings with court proceedings. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/arbitration-proceedings-not-barred-section-693-partnership-act-sc/

No official can put forth a claim that breach of trust is connected with his official duty,the Apex court bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh has observed in Punjab State Warehousing Corp. vs. Bhushan Chander while allowing an appeal by setting aside a judgment by the High Court wherein it had held that when other offences are interlinked with an offence under Section 409 IPC sanction under Section 197 IPC for launching the prosecution for the offence under Section 409 IPC is a condition precedent. The Apex Court said that such an approach is absolutely fallacious. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/no-official-can-put-forth-claim-breach-trust-connected-official-duty-sc/