Thursday 15 May 2014

NCRDC orders Builder to pay 18% Interest for Delayed Possession

NCRDC orders Builder to pay 18% Interest for Delayed Possession

National Consumer Disputes Resolution Commission (NCRDC) has ordered Parasvnath Developers Ltd (OP) to refund the amounts paid by the customer / investor along with 18% interest from the date of deposit till its realisation. Further compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per year, from 2007 onwards for harassment, mental agony, anguish, frustration, anger and sadness has been directed along with a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards costs of this case.

Points to Note:

1. As per a Clause of the Flat Buyer Agreement, it was agreed by the OP that in case of any delay, the OP shall pay to the complainants a compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft., per month, for the period of delay. 

2. Reference to The Apex Court judgement in the case of K.A. Nagamani Vs. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal Nos. 6730-31 of 2012, decided on 19.09.2012 where in 18% interest was granted.

3. National Consumer Disputes Resolution Commission (NCRDC) has ordered OP to refund the amounts paid by the customer / investor along with 18% interest from the date of deposit till its realisation. Further compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per year, from 2007 onwards for harassment, mental agony, anguish, frustration, anger and sadness has been directed along with a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards costs of this case.

4. Strong Remarks by NCRDC : "It must be borne in mind that there is a huge delay in handing over the possession of the premises in dispute, i.e., about four years. The OP has made attempt to feather its own nest i.e., to make profits for itself at the expense of others. The grant of Rs.2.00 lakhs or Rs.3.00 lakhs for such a huge delay will be unjust and unfair. The complainants .... and his wife are compelled to live in the house of their daughter. They do not have any independent house to live in. Their harassment and mental agony cannot be equated by payment of a few pea nuts. The OP has played fast and loose with the consumers"


Disclaimer: Above are personal interpretations. We do not accept any liability arising out of use of above information. Users are advised to apply their own thoughts and experience in above case.

Case Number
Consumer Complaint No. 144 of 2011

Case Title:
Subhash Chander Mahajan Vs Parasvnath Developers Ltd

Bench:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

Date of Judgement: 
05th May 2014

Full judgement / Order Link:

Wednesday 7 May 2014

2014: Supreme Court on Right To Education (RTE)

2014 : Supreme Court on Right To Education 


Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the Right to Education in case of all Private Schools except the minority schools (aided or unaided).


Personal Interpretation to the best of understanding:


1. Article 21A of the Constitution, provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. 



2. Parliament has made the law contemplated by Article 21A by enacting the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the 2009 Act’). 

3. The constitutional validity of the 2009 Act was considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 1]. Two of the three Judges had held the 2009 Act to be constitutionally valid, but they have also held that the 2009 Act is not applicable to unaided minority schools protected under Article 30(1)
of the Constitution. In the aforesaid case, however, the three-Judge Bench did not go into the question whether clause (5) of Article 15 or Article 21A of the Constitution is valid and does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has now held that 2009 Act is not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution for Private (non-minority schools)as it did not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the non-minority private schools that Article 21A of the Constitution and the 2009 Act violate their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

5. However, for minority schools aided or unaided, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "2009 Act in so far as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution".  If the 2009 Act is made applicable to minority schools, aided or unaided, the right of the minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution will be abrogated. Therefore, the 2009 Act in so far it is made applicable to minority schools referred in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution

PS: Above are personal interpretations. We do not accept any liability arising out of use of above information. Users are advised to apply their own thoughts and experience in above case.

Case Number: 
Writ Petition (Civil) No.416 of 2012

Case Title:
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.



Bench:
Hon'ble CJI. R.M. Lodha

Hon'ble Justice A. K. Patnaik

Hon'ble Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra
Hon'ble Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla

Date of Judgement: 
06th May 2014

Blog Link:

Saturday 3 May 2014

Supreme Court Directions - Cheque Bouncing Cases

Supreme Court Directions - Cheque Bouncing Cases 

Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued direction to all the Criminal Courts in the country dealing with Section 138 cases to follow the below-mentioned procedures for speedy and expeditious disposal of cases falling under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Directions to Criminal Courts dealing Section 138 cases 

(1) Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons.

(2) MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice to the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back un-served, immediate follow up action be taken.

(3) Court may indicate in the summon that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, Court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest.

(4) Court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for re-calling a witness for cross-examination.

(5) The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in Court. Witnesses to the complaint and accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court.

PS: We do not accept any liability arising out of use of above information. Users are advised to apply their own thoughts and experience in above case.


Case Number: 
Writ Petition (Civil) No.18 of 2013

Case Title:
Indian Bank Association and others Versus Union of India and others 


Bench:
Hon'ble Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan
Hon'ble Justice Vikramajit Sen


Date of Judgement: 
21st April 2014

Blog Link:
http://www.jeetendergupta.blogspot.in/2014/05/supreme-court-directions-2014-cheque.html

Full judgement / Order Link:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41436