KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI PATEL & ORS. versus M/S S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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. 2 If not, what is the scope of its participation in the proceedings once the right to file written statement has closed
  3. 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.