In 2022 SCC Volume 4 Part 1, read a very interesting case, wherein the grievance of the builder was that out of total of 1134 apartments constructed and sold by them, the owners of merely 51 apartments have joined together and invoked the jurisdiction of the National Consumer Commission and that such a miniscule percentage of consumers cannot seek to file the complaint in a representative capacity. To know what happened in this case, read the Supreme Court decision in Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani, (2022) 4 SCC 138
Short Notes: 3
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7)(b): Post-award interest on the interest amount awarded i.e. compound interest, reiterated, is grantable by Arbitral Tribunal. Arbitral Tribunal may award interest on the sum directed to be paid by the award, meaning a sum inclusive of principal sum adjudged and interest. [UHL Power Co. Ltd. v. State of H.P., (2022) 4 SCC 116]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11, 8, 16 and 34 — Arbitrability of disputes i.e. the issue of dispute(s) being non-arbitrable/being barred by limitation: While dealing with petition under S. 11, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable and in such case, the issue of non-arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. [Mohd. Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, (2022) 4 SCC 156]
Constitution of India — Arts. 15(4) and 16(4): Reservation within All-India quota (AIQ) seats in undergraduate and postgraduate seats in medical courses in State-run institutions for OBCs (non-creamy layer) by Noti. dt. 29-7-2021, held, valid. Rationale for the same, extensively explained. [Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC Reservation) v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 1]
Constitution of India — Arts. 15(6) and 16(6): Implementation of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in undergraduate and postgraduate seats in all-India quota (AIQ) in medical courses in State-run institutions for academic year 2021-2022, allowed. Challenge to validity of criteria for identification of EWS category, requires detailed hearing. [Neil Aurelio Nunes (EWS Reservation) v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 64]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Ss. 24-A and 2(1)(g) — Complaint for deficiency in service — Limitation: In this case, complaint was filed by appellant Cooperative Housing Society for refund of excess taxes and charges paid by appellant to municipal authorities, due to alleged deficiency of service of builder to obtain occupancy certificate that resulted in payment of higher taxes and water charges to municipal authority by members of Society. The Supreme Court held that continuous failure to obtain occupancy certificate is continuing wrong, therefore, complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation. [Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 103]
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — S. 35(1)(c) r/w Ss. 38(11) and 2(5)(v) r/w Or. 1 R. 8 CPC — Complaint on behalf of or for the benefit of, all consumers under S. 35(1)(c) — When permissible: Invocation of S. 35(1)(c), by some of the purchasers/complainants against the builder of residential complex i.e. complaint in a representative capacity is not permissible, in the absence of sameness of interest between all purchasers of apartments. Sine qua non for invoking S. 35(1)(c) is that all consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the provision is invoked, should have the same interest. Further, it is necessary to include in such consumer complaint under S. 35(1)(c), sufficient averments that show sameness of interest. Sameness of interest vis-à-vis sameness of cause of action, distinguished. [Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani, (2022) 4 SCC 138]
Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Matters at large/Review etc. of earlier order/Orders that may be passed — Orders that may be passed in exercise of contempt jurisdiction: In this case, the High Court in contempt proceedings entered into areas which were alien to the issue as to whether the judgment dt. 27-7-2020 was complied with or not. It was held that it was a transgression of the limits of the contempt jurisdiction and was unnecessary and inappropriate. [Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 98]
Cooperative Societies — General Issues — Cooperative Housing/Housing Society — Allotment of plot by housing society — Whether valid — Said plot whether was truly reserved as parking area in layout plan as alleged by the parties challenging the allotment: In this case, award was passed by Divisional Cooperative Officer acting as arbitrator under S. 61(1)(b) of the 1964 Act setting aside the allotment of the plot in question on the ground that it was reserved as parking area in layout plan, held, not justified as the said plot was not so reserved in the layout plan. Furthermore, persons challenging the allotment were not doing so bona fide, as they sought allotment of the same plot to themselves. Hence, held, High Court was justified in setting aside the award. [Velagacharla Jayaram Reddy v. M. Venkata Ramana, (2022) 4 SCC 129]
