https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189904 Before insertion of Section 24A, consumer complaints were not subject to any prescribed statutory limitation period, and the later amendment indicated that the Limitation Act was not originally intended to apply by implication. On the facts found, the appellants had acknowledged liability up to 30 August 1991, so the complaint was not time-barred. The directions for specific performance were also upheld because the agreement had been acted upon by delivery of possession, liability to execute the sale deed was not denied, and no jurisdictional error or material irregularity was shown in revision. The consumer fora's relief was therefore sustained. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:03:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189904 Before insertion of Section 24A, consumer complaints were not subject to any prescribed statutory limitation period, and the later amendment indicated that the Limitation Act was not originally intended to apply by implication. On the facts found, the appellants had acknowledged liability up to 30 August 1991, so the complaint was not time-barred. The directions for specific performance were also upheld because the agreement had been acted upon by delivery of possession, liability to execute the sale deed was not denied, and no jurisdictional error or material irregularity was shown in revision. The consumer fora's relief was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189904