https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313051 Limitation under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 runs from the point when the cause of action is complete; a bare intimation of increased sale area, without particulars or computation, did not start time running, so the complaint was not time-barred. A prior non-speaking dismissal in a connected matter, involving different parties, did not operate as res judicata or create binding precedent under Article 141. The earlier litigation bound only its parties, while the present dispute required fresh examination of acquiescence, estoppel, and the factual basis for the increased sale area. The matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration on merits. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313051 Limitation under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 runs from the point when the cause of action is complete; a bare intimation of increased sale area, without particulars or computation, did not start time running, so the complaint was not time-barred. A prior non-speaking dismissal in a connected matter, involving different parties, did not operate as res judicata or create binding precedent under Article 141. The earlier litigation bound only its parties, while the present dispute required fresh examination of acquiescence, estoppel, and the factual basis for the increased sale area. The matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313051