P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Association for Consumer Welfare and AID Vs. Granite Gate Properties Private Limited and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (25 Mar 2019)

Promoters include the entity which is constructing building as well as entity which is selling apartments or plots

MANU/SC/0435/2019

Consumer

The consumer complaint filed by the Appellant, which was an association representing the buyers, seeks diverse reliefs including the grant of possession of flats to the allottees of the real estate project together with common amenities and restraining the Respondents from charging additional amounts for alleged increases in the area of the flats otherwise than in accordance with the allotment letters. The case of the Appellants before the National Commission was that the second Respondent, was the main promoter of the project and that it was vested with the primary responsibility of completing the project. In the complaint before the National Commission, the second Respondent to the present appeal was arrayed as opposite party No. 1, while the first Respondent to the present appeal was opposite party No. 2. National Commission directed that the second Respondent be deleted from the array of parties.

At the present stage, the limited issue with which present Court is concerned is whether a direction for the deletion of the second Respondent was warranted.

Under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate Act, 2016, the definition of the expression promoter would include the entity which is constructing the building as well as the entity which is selling the apartments or plots.

On the basis of the material which was on record, it was not possible for the Court to conclude at the present stage that the second Respondent was unconnected with the project or has been impleaded as a party to the proceeding without any reason or basis. The issue as to what relief could be ultimately granted in the consumer complaint was a matter which would be determined during the course of the hearing of the complaint.

Consequently, on the basis of the averments contained in the complaint as well as on the material which had been placed on the record by the second Respondent, an order for deletion was not warranted at this stage. The impugned order of the NCDRC is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : PARTY   IMPLEADMENT   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved