TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR JUDGMENT 1. This set of five Appeals arises out of the common Judgment and Order dated 28-11-2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (here-in-after, referred to as "NCDRC") in First Appeal Nos.1664-1668 of 2017, whereby the NCDRC has dismissed the said Appeals filed by the present appellants challenging the Judgment and Order dated 10-7-2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (here-in-after, referred to as "State Commission") in a Consumer Complaint No.85 of 2015. 2. The appellants - herein are the owners of the land in question. They entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Respondent No.2 - Glandstone M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laints as referred Nos.CC/15/85, CC/15/86, CC/15/99, CC/15/100 & CC/15/111 are partly allowed. ii. The OP Nos.1,2&3 to provide the possession of the dwelling unit agreed in Agreement to Sell (SA) with each complainant in the span of six months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order and the complainants to pay the entire consideration of the dwelling unit as per the stages and the final amount at the time of sale deed and possession as per the agreement. iii. The OP Nos.1,2,&3 after completion of construction of dwelling units as per agreement to sell & on receiving full consideration as per agreement as above, shall execute sale deed of respective dwelling units as per agreement to respective complainant. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorised the OP-1 builder to execute the registered sale deeds etc. and receive the consideration. The State Commission, further, observed that the present appellants/OP-2 and 3 had issued notice, by which they claimed that they had cancelled the JVA and the IPA. However, the said notice was issued on 12.08.2014, which was much after the agreement made by the OP-1 with the complainants. The State Commission concluded that at the time of the agreement between the builder and the complainants, the JVA and IPA were very much operative. It is evident, therefore, that the appellants cannot wash their hands off from the matter, as it would result in grave injustice to the complainants consumers. 9. At the time of hearing also in these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 11. From the discussion above, it is held that the appellants/OP-2 and 3 landowners cannot be allowed to escape their responsibility/role in the matter of providing relief to the complainants/consumers in terms of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. It is held, therefore, that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error of any kind and the same is upheld. The present appeals are ordered to be dismissed in limine." 6. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior counsel - Mr. Kailash Vasdev that the appellants had already revoked the Power of Attorney executed by them in favour of Respondent No.2, by the letter of revocation dated 12-8-2014, coupled with Publi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o far. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsels for the parties, and to the impugned Judgments and orders passed by the `State Commission' as well as the `NCRDC', it clearly transpires that undisputedly an irrevocable power of attorney dated 6-7-2013 was executed by the appellants in favour of the Respondent No.2 along the JAV of the same date, pursuant to which the Respondent No.2 had undertaken to develop the land in question. It further appears that though allegedly the said power of attorney was revoked by the appellants vide the letter dated 12-8-2014, the JAV has not been revoked so far and the same still continues to be in force. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the....