AKSHAY & ANR. versus ADITYA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 29-08-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 847 : 2024 INSC 657
Akshay & Anr. 
v. 
Aditya & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3642-3646 of 2018)
29 August 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellants-landowners executed a Joint Venture Agreement and 
an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the Respondent 
No.2-builder for the development of the land and construction 
of flats. Respondent No.2 entered into sale agreements with the 
complainants-respondents for the units in question. Complaints 
filed by the respondents against the appellants and Respondent 
No.2 inter alia for declaration that they were guilty of deficiency 
in service and were jointly and severally liable to complete the 
construction as per the terms and conditions agreed between the 
parties and put the complainants in possession of the properties 
after completing the construction as also to execute the registered 
sale deeds in respect thereof. Complaints allowed by the State 
Commission. Order upheld by NCDRC. Whether the appellants 
were bound by the acts of the Respondent No.2 carried out pursuant 
to the irrevocable Power of Attorney till it was terminated.
Headnotes†
Consumer Dispute – Deficiency in service – Non-compliance 
of the terms and conditions of Joint Venture Agreement  
(JVA) by Respondent No.2-builder – Appellants-landowners 
and the Respondent No.2-builder, if were jointly and severally 
liable as held by State Commission and upheld by NCDRC:
Held: Yes – Though allegedly the power of attorney was revoked 
by the appellants by the letter of revocation, the JVA was not 
revoked and it continued to be in force – In the revocation letter, 
the appellants had stated to be not liable “Henceforth”, i.e after 
the said letter was sent – Thus, the appellants were bound by the 
acts/deeds of the Respondent No.2 carried out pursuant to the 
irrevocable Power of Attorney till it was terminated, in accordance 
with law – Appellants liable for the acts of Respondent No.2 – 
Judgment of NCDRC not interfered with. [Paras 8, 9]
848
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
List of Keywords
Consumer Dispute; Joint Venture Agreement; Power of attorney; 
Irrevocable power of attorney; Landowners; Development of 
the land; Construction of flats; Deficiency in service; Jointly and 
severally liable; Power of attorney revoked; Revocation letter; 
“Henceforth”.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3642-3646 
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2017 of the National 
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in FA Nos. 
1664-1668 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv., R. Mohan, V. Balaji, Asaithambi MSM, B. 
Dhananjay, S. Devendran, Limrao Singh Rawat, Rakesh K. Sharma, 
Advs. for the Appellants.
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Piyush Singhal, Bijnender Singh, Praveen 
Swarup, Alekhya Shastry, Ms. Arundati Mukherjee, Ms. Amita Singh 
Kalkal, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
1.	
This set of five Appeals arises out of the common Judgment 
and Order dated 28-11-2017 passed by the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (here-in-after, referred 
to as “NCDRC”) in First Appeal Nos.1664-1668 of 2017, whereby 
the NCDRC has dismissed the said Appeals filed by the present 
appellants challenging the Judgment and Order dated 10-7-2017 
passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (here-in-after, referred to as 
“State Commission”) in a Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 2015.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
849
Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors.
2.	
The appellants – herein are the owners of the land in question. They 
entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Respondent No.2 – 
Glandstone Mahaveer Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for the development of 
the land and for construction of flats as mentioned herein. It appears 
that the appellants also executed Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 
6-7-2013 in favour of Respondent No.2 with regard to the said land. 
The Respondent No.2 on the basis of the said documents, entered 
into the sale agreements with the respondents – complainants for 
the units in question.
3.	
The respondents – complainants filed the complaints before the ‘State 
Commission’ under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 
against the present appellants and Respondent No.2 seeking inter 
alia the declaration tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.