Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Travel India Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs Senior Town Planner HUDA, reported as 2008 (2)C.P.J. 329: 2008 (4) in which it has been held as under:-
If a problem can be solved, no need of worry about it.... If a problem can not be solved, what is the use of worrying?
Thursday, March 15, 2018
NCDRC_sale of two shops to a single person not livelihood or self employment but commercial purpose
Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Travel India Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs Senior Town Planner HUDA, reported as 2008 (2)C.P.J. 329: 2008 (4) in which it has been held as under:-
Friday, February 9, 2018
NCDRC_Commission under obligation to decide by a well-reasoned order if a document is to be taken on record or not
In any case, if certain documents are filed by either of the parties before the State Commission, it is the duty of that Commission to decide by a well-reasoned order, if such documents are to be taken on record or not.
| NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION | |||||
| NEW DELHI | |||||
| FIRST APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2017 | |||||
| (Against the Order dated 17/02/2017 in Complaint No. 12/2011 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) | |||||
| ...........Appellant(s) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Versus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ...........Respondent(s) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BEFORE: | |
| HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER | |
| HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER |
| For the Appellant : |
| For the Respondent : |
Dated : 01 Feb 2018
| ORDER | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ...................... | |||||
| DR. B.C. GUPTA | |||||
| PRESIDING MEMBER | |||||
| ...................... | |||||
| DR. S.M. KANTIKAR | |||||
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
UP Apartment Act_a landmark judgement
M/s. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority and Others (14.11.2013 - ALLHC) : MANU/UP/1765/2013
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Leading case law in respect of affidavit in lieu of examination in chief
(a) No Evidence Affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC can be allowed to be 'withdrawn'. It is evidence as soon as it is affirmed.
(b) The Evidence Affidavit cannot contain matter that is irrelevant, inadmissible or both; or is in the nature of arguments, submissions or prayers. This is not 'evidence' as required by law. Were it to be attempted from the witness box, it would not be permitted; and hence it cannot be allowed to creep in merely because it happens to be placed on affidavit.
(c) It is permissible, and in fact often necessary, for a Court, with a view to expedition and to avoid a needlessly protracted cross-examination on irrelevancies and matter that is not 'evidence' to order that any such material that does not constitute evidence be struck off or be ordered or directed to be ignored without fear of adverse consequence.
(d) Where an Evidence Affidavit is filed and the witness or deponent, though otherwise available, is not made available for cross-examination, the well-established consequences in law will follow. Specifically, the opposite party will be entitled to submit that an adverse inference be drawn against such a witness or the party who fails to produce that witness for cross- examination; and, further, that should that evidence contain any admissions, these may be used by the other party; but so much of the evidence as is against the party entitled to cross-examination but which has gone untested for want of production of the witness will be liable to be ignored.
Bombay High Court
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Haryana Apartment Ownership Act,_Turmoil over common areas in Condominium
Demolition of allegedly unauthorised shops put up by the residents' association in Heritage City, Gurgaon cloaks the more important issue: who should own common areas in group housing complexes in the state? This is a matter of contention between the builders and many of the housing societies in Gurgaon. The government's response to all such disputes is either to brush them under the carpet, or side with the developers while taking full advantage of the weaknesses in the legislation.
The Haryana Apartment Ownership Act (HAOA) was passed to give the residents of housing complexes in the state the right and the wherewithal to administer the colonies through their elected representatives. The spirit of the Act requires that once the area has been handed over to the owners' body, all common areas and facilities, too, should be transferred to them. That the law says as well. But in a clever twist of legalese it leaves it to the builder to declare in the declaration he files under the Act what constitutes 'common areas'.
In the broad scheme of the HAOA, only three kinds of properties are mentioned as components of any gated colony: general common areas, limited common areas and private residences. Whatever facilities - be it shops, club, school or any other - which the builders try to hold on to, or sell or lease to private parties, would be classified as private commercial properties and there is no provision for them in the law. This is a point made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in their judgment in the Silver Oaks case.
That verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013. The apex court had two important observations to make. One, that the licensed area in which the group housing complex known as Silver Oaks is located also has plotted areas of DLF I in it, hence the residential society of this complex alone cannot take control of all common facilities. The court said: "The colonizer could not have included the community and commercial facilities (in the declaration) because the same is meant for the benefit of the entire colony, which takes in plotted area and the group housing society's area as well." Logically it means that residents of plotted areas outside too can avail of the common facilities in the gated complex! In any case this situation is a rarity.
Second, the court said that the statute has given a discretion to the colonizer to include whatever facilities he desired in the common list because they were built by him 'at his own cost' so he could do what he liked with them. If this means that the cost of constructing these facilities was not added to the selling price of the apartments, not enough evidence was produced before the court to establish this. And even if it is correct in accounting terms, it is contrary to the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately, the building sector is not known for transparency of its accounts. But the government can still set up a mechanism by which the correct cost of building these structures can be ascertained and the apartment owners' associations given the option of buying them off. And for the future, the law must be amended unequivocally to give societies of apartment owners full control over all facilities. If that means that developers will load the cost of constructing them on the buyers (which they may have done in the past, too, but keep this fact cleverly hidden), so be it. At least this matter will be removed from the list of contentious issues that bedevil the realty sector.
https://m.timesofindia.com/city/gurgaon/turmoil-over-common-areas-in-condominium/articleshow/61921715.cms
Friday, December 1, 2017
NCDRC_deemed to have condoned the default
|
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
|
|
|
NEW DELHI
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSUMER CASE
NO. 1730 OF 2016
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
...........Complainant(s)
|
||||||
|
Versus
|
|
||||||
|
...........Opp.Party(s)
|
|
BEFORE:
|
|
|
|
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
|
|
For
the Complainant :
|
|
|
For
the Opp.Party :
|
|
Dated : 21 Nov 2017
|
ORDER
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
......................J
|
|
|
V.K. JAIN
|
|
|
PRESIDING
MEMBER
|
|
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Section 12 (1) (c) of CP Act_Meaning of same interest_different consideration for different area at different rates and in different years
|
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
|
|
|
NEW DELHI
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSUMER CASE
NO. 656 OF 2015
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
...........Complainant(s)
|
|
|
Versus
|
|
|
|
...........Opp.Party(s)
|
|
BEFORE:
|
|
|
|
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
|
|
|
HON'BLE
MR. PREM NARAIN, MEMBER
|
|
For
the Complainant :
|
|
|
For
the Opp.Party :
|
Dated : 05 May 2016
|
ORDER
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
......................J
|
|
|
K.S. CHAUDHARI
|
|
|
PRESIDING
MEMBER
|
|
|
......................
|
|
|
PREM NARAIN
|
|
|
MEMBER
|
|