Appellants cannot disclaim liability for developer's acts when joint agreement remains in force despite attempting power of attorney revocation.

SC dismissed appeals challenging NCDRC order regarding joint liability in property development dispute. Appellants executed irrevocable power of attorney and JAV with developer but only attempted to revoke power of attorney while JAV remained in force. Court held appellants cannot disclaim liability for developer's acts when they took no action against alleged non-compliance and JAV continues to operate. NCDRC's finding of joint liability upheld as appellants' position was inconsistent and without merit.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissing the appeals challenging the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order. Joint liability of landowners and a development company for construction of flats. Validity of complaints under the Consumer Protection Act. Revocation of Power of Attorney and its implications on liability.

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from a common judgment of the NCDRC dismissing appeals against the State Commission's order. The landowners entered a Joint Venture Agreement with a development company for construction. The State Commission held the parties liable for completing construction and providing possession to complainants. It also ordered compensation for harassment and costs to complainants.

2. The NCDRC upheld the State Commission's order, emphasizing the binding nature of the Joint Venture Agreement and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney. The appellants' attempt to revoke the Power of Attorney was deemed ineffective as the Joint Venture Agreement remained in force. The NCDRC rejected arguments citing previous Supreme Court judgments as inapplicable to the present case.

3. The appellants contended that they should not be held liable for actions of the development company after revoking the Power of Attorney. However, the NCDRC found that the appellants remained bound by the Joint Venture Agreement until legally terminated. The failure to take action against the development company's non-compliance further supported their liability.

4. The NCDRC concluded that the appellants could not evade responsibility for the development company's actions under the Joint Venture Agreement. Considering all aspects, the NCDRC found no grounds to interfere with the joint liability of the appellants and the development company. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for lacking merit.

---