Justice Rajesh Bindal - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees

This judgment addresses an anomaly in Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended in 2002, which inadvertently limited enforcement to "interim orders" only. The Supreme Court applied purposive interpretation to read "any order" in place of "interim order," thereby allowing enforcement of final orders as decrees under CPC Order XXI for the period 2003–2020. It also clarified that appeals against execution orders lie only to the State Commission, with no further appeal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., comprising flat purchasers, filed a consumer complaint against the respondent builder, M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, alleging deficient services and seeking execution of a conveyance deed for the common areas. The Distr...

Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries. The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts cannot act as appellate authorities to re-examine evidence. Interference is permissible only for procedural illegality, natural justice violations, or manifest perversity, not to reassess the merits of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ramadhar Sao, was employed as a messenger (a Class-IV employee) with the State Bank of India. In 2008, the Bank received complaints alleging he acted as a middleman, taking bribes from customers to facilitate the sanction and disbursement of loans. A chargesheet was issued against him in 2010, accusing him of misconduct for acting as a conduit fo...

Supreme Court: Civil Courts Can Hear Cases If Land is Declared Non-Agricultural During Trial

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the land at the time of adjudication, not filing. A subsequent declaration of land as non-agricultural under the UPZALR Act during pending proceedings validates a civil court's jurisdiction, and appeals are a continuation of the original suit. Facts Of The Case: In 1970, the appellant-landlord and the predecessor of respondents 1-3 entered a registered tenancy agreement for a piece of land to establish an Indian Oil petrol pump at a monthly rent of ₹150. The tenant defaulted on rent payments from July 1972, prompting the landlord to file a suit for eviction and arrears of rent in 1974 in the Civil Court. The tenants contested the Civil Court's jurisdiction, claiming the land was agricultural and thus only the Revenue...