Karnataka High Court Karnataka HC Directs State Government To Appoint Chairperson And Members To Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Case: Sri Mathew Thomas V/S State of Karnataka The Karnataka High Court bench comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has directed the State government of Karnataka to expeditiously appoint chairperson and members to Karnataka Real...
Karnataka High Court
Case: Sri Mathew Thomas V/S State of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court bench comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has directed the State government of Karnataka to expeditiously appoint chairperson and members to Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), which has become non-functional due to these vacant posts.
Bombay High Court
Case: Wadhwa Group Housing Private Ltd V/s. Mr. Vijay Choksi and SSS Escatics Pvt. Ltd
The Bombay High Court bench, comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, has held that promoters who are part of a real estate project but haven't received any consideration from the allottee will still be classified as “Promoters” under Section 2(zk). Consequently, they will be liable to refund the amount with interest to the allottees under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Competition Commission of India
Case Title: Vivek Gupta vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
The Competition Commission of India bench comprising Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member) and Ms. Sweta Kakkad (Member) dismissed an Information submitted against New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) alleging abuse of dominance in the relevant market of sales/auctions or allotting residential plots. The Commission held that the matter seemed to be more of a dispute between the Informant and the Opposite Party, rather than an instance of the abuse of dominant position.
Competition Commission of India
The Competition Commission of India bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Deep Anurag (Member) dismissed a complaint against Talk Charge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. with the allegation of abuse of a dominant position in the relevant market for digital payment platforms in India. The Commission held that within this market, there were several service providers, both domestic and global, indicating a competitive landscape. Further, there was a lack of evidence showing that the Informant was solely dependent on Talk Charge technologies.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case: Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd vs Mrs. Regina D'Costa
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench comprising of Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and DR. K. Shivaji (Technical Member) has held that rights of allottees under Section 18 to seek refund/ claim interest for delay is unconditional & absolute, regardless of unforeseen events and factors beyond control of Promotor.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal)
Case: Sachin Tomar And Shivaji Tomar Vs Ensaara Metropark Luxora Infrastructure Pvt, Ltd.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that a written expressed agreement for sale is not a requirement for the allottee to avail the rights stipulated under Section 18 of the RERA. Instead, what matters more is the intention of the parties, not the nomenclature of the document.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal)
Case: Sachin Tomar And Shivaji Tomar Vs Ensaara Metropark Luxora Infrastructure Pvt, Ltd.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that even if the allotment letter has been issued to allottees under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management, and transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), the real estate project will still be covered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) if the real estate project has been registered under RERA.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case: Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd vs Mrs. Regina D'Costa
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench comprising of Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and DR. K. Shivaji (Technical Member) has held, that provisions of the RERA, 2016, are prospective in nature and applicable to all agreements for sale executed prior to the enactment of the act, or under any previous legislation in force at that time.
Delhi Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT or Tribunal)
While setting aside the order and penalty imposed by the Delhi Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA or Authority), the Delhi Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT or Tribunal) bench comprising of Justice Chander Shekhar (Chairperson), Lorren Bamniyal (Judicial Member), and Sheo Pratap Singh (Technical Member), has held that RERA, while exercising its authority against a promoter or any real estate agent through suo-motu proceedings, must inform the concerned party of the alleged violations by providing specific details in the notice.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority
UP RERA Mandates Real Estate Agents To Undergo Compulsory Training And Certification
In a significant step towards improving professionalism within the Real Estate Sector, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued an office order mandating compulsory Training and Certification Courses for real estate agents. This order applies to both newly registering real estate agents and those already registered with UPRERA, requiring them to complete the Compulsory Training and Certification within one year. Failure to comply will result in the cancellation of registration for registered agents.
Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Gujrat RERA Establishes An Internal Mechanism For Amicable Settlement Of Complaints
Gujarat RERA has released guidelines aimed at expediting the resolution of complaints under Section 31 before the authority by establishing an internal mechanism for amicable settlement. Designated officers, including Mr. P. R. Patel, Mr. D. D. Rajput, and Mr. V. C. Barot, have been appointed as Mediators. Additionally, representatives from industry bodies may be called upon if necessary.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority
MahaRERA To Start Grading Real Estate Projects On Four Parameters Every Six Months From April 2024
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) plans to implement a grading system for real estate projects starting from April 2024. All projects initiated from January 2023 onwards will undergo assessment by the regulatory body as part of this initiative, which is aimed at providing information about these parameters to homebuyers to assist them in making decisions.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UPRERA Issues Guidelines Outlining The Do's And Don'ts For Promoters To Adhere To When Advertising Projects. The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has released guidelines in the form of do's and don'ts for promoters which they will have to mandatorily follow while advertising their projects. These guidelines aim to create widespread awareness among promoters, agents, and homebuyers.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Preetinder Singh (Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Ford against the Chandigarh District Commission's order which directed it to refund or replace a defective Ford Mustang Car. The defective engine of the car led to a sudden breakdown, causing a traffic jam and injuries to the owner while pushing it. The State Commission upheld that Ford and the Dealer were liable to provide either a refund or replacement, pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- for legal costs.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench comprising Mrs Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) allowed an appeal by Lakaki Drycleaners that they were not liable for the Complainant's damaged garments as the Complainant proceeded to pay the bill and collected the garments without raising any objections. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Commission, North Goa due to lack of objection on the Complainant's part and absence of proof.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Member) dismissed an appeal against the National Insurance Company Ltd. The State Commission concluded that the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the insurance claim covering burglary risk by acting upon the surveyor's report as it is. The Appellant failed to provide the requisite claimed documents to the surveyor and thus the basis of valuation could not be formed.
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held Axis Bank liable for deficiency in services in a housing loan case. The Complainant faced delays and hurdles in his loan process, eventually leading to the forfeiture of his earnest money. Despite the bank's assertion of property non-identification, the State Commission found the bank's lack of communication and failure to produce essential documents suspicious. They directed the bank to refund the processing fee and pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant.
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission adjudicated a dispute concerning the cancellation of the flight run by Jet Airways and booked through Make My Trip after insolvency proceedings had been initiated against Jet Airways under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Commission and held that the District Commission failed to take the T&C and Jet Airways' Resolution Plan into consideration. It was held that the decision of the NCLT would be final and binding upon the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr S.K. Sardana (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank for failure to reverse a series of unauthorized transactions totalling Rs. 2,60,000/-. The Bank could not prove any negligence on the Complainant's part. Further, the Complainant informed the bank promptly within 3 days, as per the RBI guidelines.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (Punjab) bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Mandeep Kaur (Member) held Videocon liable for deficiency in services for failure to replace the LED TV which malfunctioned within the warranty period. The bench directed Videocon to replace the LED TV or pay the sale price of Rs. 49,800/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi SM (Member) held the Central Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for failure to return the property documents submitted as pledge by the Complainants. The bench directed the bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the deficiency in services.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank and Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for demanding money from the Complainant to settle the Credit Card due despite him paying Rs. 15,500/- for full and final settlement. The bench directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Axis Bank Ltd. liable of unfair trade practices for arbitrable deduction of “Consolidated Charges” from the Complainant's bank account without providing adequate notice and satisfactory reasons. The bench directed the bank to refund the full amount of Rs. 40,000/- deducted from the Complainant's account and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable of deficiency in services for false repudiation of claim made by the Complainant as legal heir of her husband. The bench directed PNB to pay the claim of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held IDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services for freezing the bank account of the Complainant without providing adequate reasons. The bench directed the bank to unfreeze the Complainant's savings account and pay Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for reduction of a legitimate claim amount without satisfactory reasons. The bench directed the insurance company to the remaining claim of Rs. 1,67,969/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation expenses to the Complainant.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi SM (Member) held POCO liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for selling a defective mobile phone with motherboard issues to the Complainant. The bench directed POCO to refund Rs. 20,999/-, representing the value of the mobile phone and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr. R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Manyavar and Paytm liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund the money deducted from the Complainant's account despite showing “transaction failed”. The bench directed Manyavar and Paytm to refund Rs. 9496/- to the Complainants and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complaints along with Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore bench comprising Vijay Kumar. M. Pawale, B. Devaraju and V. Anuradha held the Central Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for not providing interest subsidy during the loan tenure to the Complainant. The bench directed the bank to provide the interest subsidy to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 2,500/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Delhi
Unilaterally Increase Of Loan Tenure, Delhi District Commission Holds ICICI Bank Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Delhi bench comprising Monika A Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and UK Tyagi (Member) held ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in services for unilaterally increasing the loan tenure without informing the Complainant. The bench directed the bank to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Shaurya Vir Singh Pathania vs Himachal Road Transport Commission, Office at Old Bus Stand, Cart Road, Shimla, H.P and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member) held Redbus and Himachal Road Transport Commission (HRTC) liable for deficiency in services failure to inform the Complainant of the change in Bus route and failure to refund the ticket to the Complainant. The bench directed HRTC and Redbus to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant covering the ticket price and compensation for the mental agony and litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr. Baldev Singh (President) and Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against St. Edward's School noting that education cannot be considered a commodity and education institutes providing services cannot be considered as service providers under the Consumer Protection Act.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (Punjab) bench comprising Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Suman Khanna (Member) held Sony liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair a home theatre which was within the warranty period. The bench directed Sony to replace the home theatre with a new one and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmed (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services for the delay in delivering the Complainants' luggage, six days after they arrived in New York. The bench directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainants along with Rs. 25,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by them.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Nimal Sharma (Member) and Dr. Subesingh Yadav (President) held LG Electronics liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair the ACs sold to the Complainant which were within the warranty period. The bench directed LG to refund ₹ 28,950/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of ₹ 5,000 and ₹ 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.