Tag: supremecourt

Held: This Court had an occasion to consider similar issue namely
the exercise of suo moto power u/sub-section (4) of s.50-B of Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950
in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh
Reddy [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 698, wherein it was held that suo moto
power should be exercised within a reasonable period even in case of
fraud and within a reasonable time from the date of discovery of fraud
and it depends on facts and circumstances of each case – Further,
in sub-section (4) of s.50-B, AP Act, the expression “the collector
may, suo moto at any time;” is occurring while such expression is
conspicuously absent in sub-section (6) of s.122-(C) of UPZALR

Act – Furthermore, the report or the communication of the Lekhpal
forwarded to the Tehsildar does not even suggest or indicate any
fraud having occurred or alleged against writ petitioners – However,
the Tehsildar in the report submitted to the District Magistrate, on
the basis of certain presumed irregularities concluded that allotment
was irregular and approval of allotment was on the basis of forged
signature of Sub-District Magistrate – Although, the basis of such
conclusion namely signature of the Sub-District Magistrate having
been forged was not specified – No allegation of whatsoever nature
was attributed to the allottees of they having forged the signature/s
– In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fraud was
attributed to the writ petitioners in show cause notices – Impugned
order of the High Court; the order passed by the Additional Collector
which held that proceedings for cancellation could be started at any
time as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner,
(Administration) Moradabad Division are unsustainable and set
aside. [Paras 13, 15-17, 19]

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 287 : 2024 INSC 430

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14(1) – Property of a female
Hindu to be her absolute property – Right of the legal heir
of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the
unpartitioned joint hindu family property by virtue of s.14(1),
when neither the widow nor her legal heir in possession of
the suit land:
Held: For establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family
estate u/s. 14(1), the Hindu female must not only be possessed
of the property but she must have acquired the property and such
acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at
a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance
or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
prescription – On going through the pleadings in the Revenue
suit for partition filed by legal heir, it is clear that that the widow
or the legal heir himself were never in possession of the suit
property – As a matter of fact, the suit was filed by pleading that
the suit property was a joint Hindu family property and appellantbeneficiary of the unpartitioned estate by way of Will, had consented
to give half share of the suit property to the legal heir on his
demand – This assertion was denied by appellant – Widow was
never in possession of the suit property because the civil suit
was filed by her claiming the relief of title as well as possession
and the same was dismissed and she was held only entitled to
receive maintenance from the undivided estate – This finding of
the civil Court was never challenged – Since, widow was never
in possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the

Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership u/s. 14(1)
could not be maintained by her adopted son, plaintiff by virtue
of inheritance – Thus, the impugned judgments restoring the
judgment and decree of the Revenue Court that the plaintiff being
the sole legal heir of the widow has coparcenary rights over the
lands belonging to widow’s husband, cannot be sustained and
are set aside

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 298 : 2024 INSC 428

The Supreme Court of India has held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) erred in adjourning sine die the complaints filed by the Alpha G184 Owners Association against M/S Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that the pendency of a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the registration of the Association under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, did not make the complaints not maintainable before the NCDRC.

The Association had filed the complaints alleging that the respondent had failed to construct and complete the promised flats within the timeline agreed upon, and had failed to pay compensation for the delay caused. The respondent had challenged the registration of the Association before the High Court, alleging that the Association’s aims and objectives were not in conformity with the HRRS Act. The High Court had stayed the proceedings before the NCDRC, but had not stayed the operation of the Association’s registration.

The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC had erred in adjourning the complaints sine die. The Court held that the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court did not make the complaints not maintainable before the NCDRC. The Court also held that the NCDRC could have proceeded with the complaints even if the Association’s registration was eventually cancelled.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a victory for the Association and for consumers in general. The decision sends a clear message that the NCDRC will not be deterred from hearing complaints against builders who have failed to deliver on their promises. The decision also reaffirms the importance of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in protecting the interests of consumers.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a welcome development for consumers in India. The decision will help to ensure that builders who fail to deliver on their promises are held accountable. The decision will also help to protect the interests of consumers and to promote consumerism in India.