LexESTATE MANAGER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD versus RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 434 ~ A ESTATE MANAGER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD v. RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA (Civil Appeal No.2599 of 2009) 8 APRIL 16, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] ~ URBAN DEVELOPMENT: c Housing - Allotment of plots - Through lottery -. Additional charges for corner plot and for best location plot - Held: Valid - The advertisement specifically mentioned for additional charges - The view of National Consumer Disputes D Redressal Commission and the District Forum holding the additional charges unsustainable is set aside and that of the • State Commission upholding the extra charges is maintained - Consumer Protection Act, 1985. The respondents-allottees filed complaints before the E District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum contending that the apllellant-Board could not charge 10% extra amount for a corner plot and 5% for best location plot, as the allotment of pfots was based on lottery. The ' - District Forum held in favour of the allottees, but the State F Commission upheld the demand. However, the National Commission having set aside the demand for extra charges, the Board filed the appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court G HELD: The demand was authorized in terms and conditions of registration of allotment. It has been specifically mentioned in the advertisement that registration of the house shall be determined by the H lottery and the terms and conditions of registration and 434 ..,# ESTATE MANAGER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD v. 435 RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA --.-- j allotment specifically provided for additional charges. A That being so, the view taken by the National Commission cannot be sustained, and is set aside. The directjon for levy of interest also cannot be maintained and is set aside. The order passed by the State Commission is maintained. [Para 5 and 6] [437-A-B, E-F] B CIVIL APPEL.LATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. .I, 2599 of 2009 . From the Judgment & Order dated 09.07.2004 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New c Delhi in R.P. No. 303 of 2004. WITH C.A. No. 2600 of 2009. D .. + C.A. No. 2601 of 2b09. C.A. No. 2602 of 2009. C.A. No. 2603 of 2009. E C.A. No. 2604 of 2009. S.K. Dubey, B.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay and Yogesh >t " Tiwari for the Appellant(s). A.K. Chitale, Niraj Sharma, Vikrant Singh Bais and F Sumeet Sharma for the Respondents. ' The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the G parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. ~ 436 ~ A the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short the 'National Commission'). By the impugned order the National Commission set aside the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the 'State Commission') The respondents B had filed complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (in short the 'District Forum') making a grievance that the present appellant Board cannot charge 10% extra charge for a corner plot and 5% extra charge for best -f location plot. Accor9ing to the complainant these amounts are c not payable as the appellant Board had accepted the amounts payable without such charges. The District Forum accepted the complaints and directed that the charges levied and demanded cannot be collected. Questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the District Forum the State Commission was moved D by way of appeal by the present appellant. The appeal was allowed. It was specifically noted that the District Forum had not kept in view the fact that there is a provision in the manual + ... issued by the Board in the year 1978 about such levy. The State Forum also referred to various documents like the Board's E advertisement relating to registration for Higher Income Group Houses, Indore. The order of District Forum was set aside by the State Forum. Questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the State Commission revision petitions were filed before the National Commission which was allowed by the impugned order. ~ ~ F 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Board submitted that the National Commission did not take note of various relevant documents like the advertisement relating to registration for Higher Income Group Houses, letter of allotment and the terms G and conditions of registrat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.