LexKANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THR. VICE CHAIRMAN versus SHEO PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 163 KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THR. VICE A CHAIRMAN v. SHEO PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6017 of 2012) AUGUST 24, 2012 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] B Notice - Service of - Whether effected on the opposite C party - Complaint against appellant-Authority before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - State Commission by ex-parte order allowing the complaint - Appellant-Authority filing appeal before National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, taking plea that State D Commission passed ex-parte order without affording it opportunity to be heard - National Commission rejected the plea of non-service of notice - On appeal, held: There is nothing on record to suggest that notice was issued by State Commission on appellant-Authority - Appeal allowed - Matter E remitted to National Commission for deciding whether notice issued by State Commission was properly served on appellant-Authority and then to decide the appeal on merits. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6017 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 29.5.2012 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 42 of 2012. Abhishek Chaudhary for the Appellant. K.P. Sunder Rao, Wajeeh Shafiq, Chandan Kumar Rai for the Respondents. 163 F G H 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. A The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Leave granted. B 2. Learned counsel for both the sides agree that the appeal may be disposed of at this stage. 3. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29th May, 2012 passed by the National Consumers c Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'the National Commission')in First Appeal No.42 of 2012, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Authority') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar D Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission')dated 14th October, 2011 was dismissed. 4. According to the appellant-Authority vide its office order dated 31st October, 1992 it was determined that in the matter of allotment of any home or plot, if any dispute arises and it E does not remain possible to complete the registration proceedings or to handover the possession in lieu thereof, an alternate house or plot shall not be offered and the amount deposited by the allottee shall be returned back to him alongwith the interest as per the rate of post office saving account. F 5. In response to an advertisement issued by the appellant- Authority in the year 2005 for sale of various plots by auction pursuant to the Kakadeo Scheme, the respondents being interested to purchase one of the plots bearing Plot No.6 in Block M admeasuring 1364.15 sq.mtr., participated in the G auction. The price of the said plot was fixed by the appellant- Authority at Rs.8,000/- per sq.mtr. with a condition precedent to deposit Rs.11,00,000/- as registration fee. 6. Pursuant to the guidelines dated 31st October, 1992, H the respondents filed an affidavit on 18th August, 2005 before KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THR. VICE 165 CHAIRMAN v. SHEO PRAKASH GUPTA the appellant-Authority, that if in giving the possession of the A allotted plot, any delay is caused in land acquisition or judicial processes or due to the non-completion of the contract within the prescribed time or due to any other unavoidable reason, then they shall not be having any right to claim damages. B 7.As the respondents were successful as the highest bidders, they were allotted the aforesaid plot vide a Jetter No.DI 605/JointSecretary/ZoneNo.2 /2005-06 dated 20th August, 2005 whereunder the premium of the said plot was fixed at Rs.11, 700/- per sq .mtr. They were informed that the remaining C 3/4th of the premium was to be paid in four quarterly installments alongwith 15% of the interest while the amount of the first installment was Rs.32,76,623/-, payable on 1st October, 2005. 8. Earlier, the respondents in their affidavit filed before the appellant-Authority stated that they were ready to accept all the D terms and conditions in the allotment of the plot. 9. Before giving possession of the plot to the respondents, in a civil proceeding, the Civil Court, Kanpur issued a temporary injunction. It was immediately conveyed by the E appellant-Authority to the au
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.