<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (12) TMI 737 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460917</link>
    <description>A composite housing transaction involving construction and allied obligations was treated as a service arrangement under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so a complaint seeking execution and registration of the conveyance was maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Act was read broadly in light of its remedial object and Section 3, which preserves its remedies as additional to other laws. The availability of relief under the Specific Relief Act or the Registration Act did not exclude consumer jurisdiction, because the dispute fell within the definitions of consumer, service, deficiency, and the Forum&#039;s powers. The Consumer Forum was therefore competent to entertain and decide the claim for conveyance execution and registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 10:10:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 737 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460917</link>
      <description>A composite housing transaction involving construction and allied obligations was treated as a service arrangement under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so a complaint seeking execution and registration of the conveyance was maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Act was read broadly in light of its remedial object and Section 3, which preserves its remedies as additional to other laws. The availability of relief under the Specific Relief Act or the Registration Act did not exclude consumer jurisdiction, because the dispute fell within the definitions of consumer, service, deficiency, and the Forum&#039;s powers. The Consumer Forum was therefore competent to entertain and decide the claim for conveyance execution and registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>