Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Order: Signature Not Verified

    Uploaded by

    Himanshu Shah
    This order summarizes a dispute over maintenance charges for an apartment complex. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had previously ordered the appellants to pay 70% of maintenance charges from 2002 onwards. The appellants challenged orders related to the execution of that judgment. The Supreme Court held that appeals do not lie against orders passed in execution proceedings under the relevant consumer protection law. It dismissed the appeals as not maintainable and clarified that it made no findings on the merits of the objections raised.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Order: Signature Not Verified

    Uploaded by

    Himanshu Shah
    47 views6 pages
    This order summarizes a dispute over maintenance charges for an apartment complex. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had previously ordered the appellants to pay 70% of maintenance charges from 2002 onwards. The appellants challenged orders related to the execution of that judgment. The Supreme Court held that appeals do not lie against orders passed in execution proceedings under the relevant consumer protection law. It dismissed the appeals as not maintainable and clarified that it made no findings on the merits of the objections raised.

    Original Title

    pdf_upload-380782

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order summarizes a dispute over maintenance charges for an apartment complex. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had previously ordered the appellants to pay 70% of maintenance charges from 2002 onwards. The appellants challenged orders related to the execution of that judgment. The Supreme Court held that appeals do not lie against orders passed in execution proceedings under the relevant consumer protection law. It dismissed the appeals as not maintainable and clarified that it made no findings on the merits of the objections raised.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    47 views6 pages

    Order: Signature Not Verified

    Uploaded by

    Himanshu Shah
    This order summarizes a dispute over maintenance charges for an apartment complex. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had previously ordered the appellants to pay 70% of maintenance charges from 2002 onwards. The appellants challenged orders related to the execution of that judgment. The Supreme Court held that appeals do not lie against orders passed in execution proceedings under the relevant consumer protection law. It dismissed the appeals as not maintainable and clarified that it made no findings on the merits of the objections raised.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 6

    WWW.LIVELAW.

    IN
    CA 1213-15/2017
    1

    REPORTABLE
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    Civil Appeal Nos 1213-1215 of 2017

    M/s Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited Appellant(s)


    (Now known as) Ambience Developers and
    Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and Another

    Versus

    Ambience Island Apartment Owners and Others Respondent(s)

    ORDER

    1 These appeals are from an order of the National Consumer Disputes

    Redressal Commission dated 3 November 2015. The order of the NCDRC is

    in execution proceedings arising out of an original judgment and order dated

    19 March 2014 in Consumer Case No 93 of 2004. By its order dated 19 March

    2014, the NCDRC directed the appellants to pay 70% of the maintenance

    charges from November 2002 with interest at 9 % per annum within 90 days

    or else pay at an enhanced rate of 12 % per annum.

    2 The order of the NCDRC was challenged before this Court in a civil appeal

    which was dismissed on 29 August 2014. An execution proceeding was

    initiated before the NCDRC which has resulted in an order dated 3 November

    2015. The NCDRC has, by its order, come to the conclusion that under the

    original order the decretal amount would cover sixty-six persons and that the

    Signature Not Verified appellants are liable to pay seventy per cent of the total maintenance
    Digitally signed by
    ARJUN BISHT
    Date: 2020.09.01
    18:00:52 IST
    Reason:
    WWW.LIVELAW.IN
    CA 1213-15/2017
    2

    charges.

    3 The grievance of the appellants is that since the complaint before the NCDRC

    pertained only to the deficiency in service as regards the provision of lifts,

    the order of the NCDRC directing the payment of seventy per cent of the

    total maintenance amount (as opposed to seventy percent of the

    maintenance charges collected for lifts) is contrary to the tenor of the

    complaint and the original order.

    4 A preliminary objection has been raised in the counter affidavit to the

    maintainability of the appeals.

    5 Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides as follows:

    “23 Appeal.- Any person, aggrieved by an order made by the


    National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-
    clause (i) of clause (a) section 21, may prefer an appeal against
    such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days
    from the date of the order:

    Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after


    the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that
    there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

    Provided further that no appeal by a person who is required to pay


    any amount in terms of an order of the National Commission shall
    be entertained by the Supreme Court unless that person has
    deposited in prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or
    fifty thousand rupees, whichever is less."

    6 An appeal under Section 23 lies against an order which is passed by the

    NCDRC in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 21(a)(i). Section 21(a)(i)

    provides as follows:

    “21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.- Subject to the


    other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have
    jurisdiction-
    WWW.LIVELAW.IN
    CA 1213-15/2017
    3

    (a) to entertain-

    (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services


    and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one
    crore];

    7 From the above provision, it is evident that an appeal under Section 23 is

    maintainable against an order which has been passed by the NCDRC on a

    complaint where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if

    any, claimed, exceeds the threshold which is prescribed.

    8 In a recent judgment in Karnataka Housing Board vs K.A. Nagamani

    (2019) 6 SCC 424, this Court made a distinction between execution

    proceedings and original proceedings and held that the former are separate

    and independent. In our view, having regard to Section 23 of the Consumer

    Protection Act 1986, an appeal will not lie to this court against an order which

    has been passed in the course of execution proceedings. The appeals are

    hence dismissed as not being maintainable.

    9 Ms Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

    has submitted that the objections which were raised on behalf of the

    appellants in the course of the execution proceedings before the NCDRC

    were without any merit having regard to the fact that the same objections to

    the original order of the NCDRC were raised in the proceedings in review as

    well as in the civil appeal which was filed before and dismissed by this Court.

    Ms Jaiswal has submitted that since a review and the civil appeal against the

    original order have been dismissed, similar objections could not have been

    raised in the course of execution proceedings.


    WWW.LIVELAW.IN
    CA 1213-15/2017
    4

    10 We have upheld the preliminary objection and have concluded that the

    appeals filed against the impugned order are not maintainable under the

    provisions of Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

    11 We clarify that in view of the fact that the Court has upheld the preliminary

    objection, we have had no occasion to express any view on the merits of the

    grievance which has been raised in these appeals or for that matter in regard

    to the objections of the respondents thereto.

    12 The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.

    13 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

    ….....…...….......………………........J.
    [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

    ..…....…........……………….…........J.
    [K M Joseph]

    New Delhi;
    August 28, 2020
    CKB
    WWW.LIVELAW.IN
    CA 1213-15/2017
    5

    ITEM NO.3 Court 4 (VC) SECTION XVII-A

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Civil Appeal Nos.1213-1215/2017

    M/S AMBIENCE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE Appellant(s)


    LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS) AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS
    AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ANR.

    VERSUS

    AMBIENCE ISLAND APARTMENT OWNERS & ORS. Respondent(s)

    (With appln.(s) for stay)

    Date : 28-08-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.

    CORAM :
    HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

    For Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.


    Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, Adv.
    Ms. Tannya Sharma, Adv.
    Ms. Deepti Gupta, Advocate
    Mr. Gurmeet Sachdeva, Adv
    Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR

    For Respondent(s)
    Mr. Anup Jain, AOR

    Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR


    Ms. Rani Mishra, Adv.
    Ms. Aidity Pandey, Adv.

    Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR

    M/s. Vaibhav And Dash Law Associates, AOR


    WWW.LIVELAW.IN
    CA 1213-15/2017
    6

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following


    O R D E R

    1 The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

    2 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

    (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)


    AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
    (Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file)

    You might also like