Quashed

Smt. Jasumati Wd/O Jethalal Thaker v. Satpal Singh Kasturialal Arora and 2 Others

Bombay HC14 Jan 2021WP/110/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order summoning an 89-year-old petitioner with limited life interest in property before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, noting her relinquishment of interest.

What did the court decide?

Order of issuance of summons against the petitioner under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 quashed and set aside.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directionsCourt's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

2.In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of issuance of summons passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, vide order dated 16.07.2016 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arising out of Complaint No. 170 of 2005.

3.It is stated that the petitioner - Smt. Jasumati wd/o Jethalal Thaker, aged about 89 years was the consenting party to the agreement of development between the Builder M/s. Malti Constructions through its proprietor Shri Pratap s/o

Premchand Agrawal and sons of the petitioner i.e. Dilip Jethalal Thaker and Pravin Jethalal Thaker (both dead). It is stated that since both the sons of the petitioner have died, the process for execution of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was issued against the present petitioner. She being a lady of about 89 years, her interest in the said property was only to the extent of life interest, bequeathed by the original owner – her husband and she was entitled only to possess the property till her death. It is stated that now the property has been developed by M/s. Malti Constructions and as the builder failed to execute the sale deeds to the apartment purchasers as per the commitments, one of the apartment purchasers approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, for directions to the builder to execute the sale deed and for compensation. It was partly allowed to the extent of compensation and other monetary reliefs.

4.The Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been allowed and the respondents were directed to execute the sale deed. As the respondents have failed to execute the sale deed, the proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act have been

5.Considering the limited interest of the petitioner in the said property and considering the fact that she is aged about 89 years and appears to have relinquished her limited interest in the property, the order of issuance of summons against her is quashed and set aside. Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Smt. Jasumati Wd/O Jethalal Thaker v. Satpal Singh Kasturialal Arora and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jasumati Wd/O Jethalal Thaker v. Satpal Singh Kasturialal Arora and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh @ Raju Vitthalrao Wahare Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Deoli

Rajesh @ Raju Vitthalrao Wahare Vs State of Mah

Shamrao Motiram Atram (in Jail) Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Laheri Distgadchiroli

Jageshwar Wasudeo Kawle Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Girad, Tah. Samudrapur, Distwardha

State of Mah., Thr. Atni Corruption Bureau, Amravati Vs Raju Shyamrao Makeshwar

Noor Khan Munir Khan Pathan Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Barshitakli Tqbrashitakli Distakola and Another