KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI PATEL & ORS. versus M/S S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
The Supreme Court held that when a party's right to file a written statement has been declared forfeited, that party may still participate in proceedings and cross-examine witnesses but cannot use written submissions to introduce pleadings or evidence to make out its case; pleadings must be in a written statement. Applying this, the first respondent could not have its pleadings considered beyond the legally permissible limit, and the NCDRC's formula for fixing due date for possession was modified to follow the contractual due date (September 2014) and the precedent in R.V. Prasannakumaar for computing interest at 6% per annum until offer of possession.
- Parties
- Appellants / Complainants: Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors.; Respondent / Opposite Party (respondent No.1): M/s S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited; Proforma Respondents: Respondent Nos.2 to 6 (proforma respondents)
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 22 July 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No.8176 of 2022) / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Order Dated 15.09.2022 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.945 of 2019
- Outcome
- Appeal partly allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture of Right to File Written Statement, Scope of Participation After Forfeiture, Pleadings and Evidence, Computation of Compensation for Delay in Possession
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors.
Appellants / Complainants
M/s S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited
Respondent / Opposite Party (respondent No.1)
Respondent Nos.2 to 6 (proforma respondents)
Proforma Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No.8176 of 2022) / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Order Dated 15.09.2022 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.945 of 2019
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a party whose right to file written statement is closed can file written submissions that introduce pleadings to resist the claim against it
- 2 If not, what is the scope of its participation in the proceedings once the right to file written statement has closed
- 3 What is the impact of the forfeiture of the right to file a written statement on admissibility of its submissions and on the adjudication by the forum
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that when a party's right to file a written statement has been declared forfeited, that party may still participate in proceedings and cross-examine witnesses but cannot use written submissions to introduce pleadings or evidence to make out its case; pleadings must be in a written statement. Applying this, the first respondent could not have its pleadings considered beyond the legally permissible limit, and the NCDRC's formula for fixing due date for possession was modified to follow the contractual due date (September 2014) and the precedent in R.V. Prasannakumaar for computing interest at 6% per annum until offer of possession.
Court Disposition
Appeal partly allowed.
Orders
- Impugned NCDRC order modified insofar as the method of fixing the due date for possession: due date fixed as September 2014 for computation of delayed compensation.
- Developer (first respondent) directed to pay delayed compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the deposit of each complainant from the due date of possession (September 2014) till the date on which the respective complainant-buyer is offered possession.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment