Important Judgments of the Year 2022

                                                            PART-11

6.

Bharmaputra Biochem Private Limited Versus New India Assurance Company & Anr.

Civil Appeal No. 6943 Of 2021

 Date February 21, 2022

 Head Note- Matter can not be left unjudicated for being made a party not necessary. Court has right to  struck down an unnecessary party 

Facts leading to appeal before the SC were that an order was passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 27.09.2021 by which complaint was returned unadjudicated for the reason as said that suryeyor was an unnecessary party in Insurance claim matter. Liberty was given to the claimant / appellant to file fresh complaint within 30 days. While granting liberty  it was directed to make the insurance company alone the 'sole opposite party for seeking redressal

The NCDRC returned the complaint with the Observations: -

“We agree that a complaint ought not to be defeated by reason of misjoinder of parties alone. In the present case however we find that the contents and articulation of the complaint is such that the insurance co. and its surveyor & loss assessor have been inextricably conjoined together, the material distinction that the complainant co. is a 'consumer' of the insurance co. alone, and not of its surveyor & loss assessor. The difference between the performance of service by the insurance co. and the role and responsibility of its surveyor & loss assessor has not been maintained.”

SC bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian observed that the approach of NC is erroneous" and said that if there was misjoinder of parties, the unnecessary parties should be deleted, instead of returning the complaint

"We find that the approach of the NCDRC is erroneous as if the NCDRC was of the opinion that the Surveyor was an unnecessary party or the pleadings are contradictory, it should have struck down the said party. The striking of surveyor from the array of parties would not make the complaint disjoined, as it was duty of the NCDRC to strike of an unnecessary party

 

                                                                        7.

Amit Katyal V/S  Meera Ahuja & others SC                                                        

Civil appeal No. 3778 of 2020

Date 03.03.2022

Bench of M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, J

Head Note- Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings against  a builder can be withdrawn if parties settle the issue  (SC)

In present case Amit Katyal V/S  Meera Ahuja & others, Home buyers in the housing project, Krrish Provence Estate at Gurgaon had gone against Jasmine Buildmart Pvt.  and invoked  Section 7of  IBC 2016  before the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT.

But later the original applicants have preferred IA No. 18679 of 2022 under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Rules 11 and 12 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, praying for permitting the original applicants to withdraw CIRP proceedings on their being paid a sum of Rs.3,36,02,000/- along with applicable interest, out of the amount deposited by the appellant in the Registry of this Court.

Apex  court allowed withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a builder in an application filed by three homebuyers in view of a settlement plan agreed upon by the majority of them. In the larger interest of the homebuyers, the apex court exercised power under article 142 to permit withdrawal of the CIRP proceedings and set aside all matters pending between the parties,this order is passed on  March 03, 2022

Apex Court held- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The object and purpose of 14 the IBC is not to kill the company and stop/stall the project, but to ensure that the business of the company runs as a going concern

                                                8.

Mahaveer Stone Crushing Co V/S  Tata Motors Ltd(SC)

Civil appeal No 6730 of 2010

Decided on 24.03.2022

Head Note Selling Repainted & Repaird vehicleis deficiency of services  

Complaint before District Forum Gurugaon under CP Act 1986

·         That new vehicle purchase on 10.2.1999

·         When taken to workshop after five months of purchase it was observed that vehicle was accidental and claimed relief for re-placement.

·         Dealer as well Manufacturer were made parties .Expert made on 27.1.2000 confirmed the fact .District forum ordered for replacement with cost of litigation

2)State commission observed there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle neither it was accidental ,hence no manufacturing defect .It was normal scratches  while transporting from factory to agency .Hence sum of 50000/- granted to complainant as compensation

3) National commission confirms the order

4) SC Observations –,Inspection made on 15.06.2003 through court

·         Vehicle found repaired from left side,right side and back

·         Found repainted 80% and 20% had original paint

·         Paint work done was discoloured and turned yellow

·         Left front door was notworking/the key supplied were  not matching the slot of lock ,not opening with the keys

No manufacturing defect could identified but new vehicle in this condtion is physical damage .Hence compensation to the tune of Rs 1,60000/-

9.

Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sushma Ashok Shiroor ;

Civil Appeal No. 6044 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 7149 of 2019

 Decided on  April 07, 2022

Bench ;Uday Umesh Lalit; J, S. Ravindra Bhat; J, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J

Head Note- SC allowed three fold choices to the home buyer not been given possession of dwelling within stipulated time

SC in a case decided on 07.04.2022 takes a very liberal view in favour of home buyers who invested their hard earned money in developers project but does not get possession within stipulated time

SC has allowed three fold choices to the home buyer who has not been given possession of dwelling within stipulated time frame

1. The power to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of Agreement is within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts  A consumer can pray for refund of the money with interest and compensation

2.  The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation.

3. The consumer can also make a prayer for both in the alternative.  If a consumer prays for refund of the amount, without an alternative prayer, the Commission will recognize such a right and grant

“The freedom to choose the necessary relief is of the Consumer and it is the duty of the Courts to honour it.”

The above order makes the position clear that home buyer can be given compensation in all the situations whether asks for refund with interest& compensation  or possession with delayed compensation

 

Previous

Next