BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED versus ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI & ORS.

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED versus ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI & ORS.

The National Commission erred in granting permission under Section 35(1)(c) because the respondents failed to plead and establish 'sameness of interest' across all 1134 purchasers (notably no pleadings for Amber block's 386 apartments and no uniformity of delay), and therefore the complaint must be treated as a joint complaint by the respondents only and not as a representative complaint on behalf of all purchasers; other purchasers may be impleaded if their grievances align with the complaint.

Parties
Appellant: Brigade Enterprises Limited; Respondent: Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Dated 05.04.2021 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (i.a. No. 7350 of 2020 in Consumer Case No. 880 of 2020)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission modified.
Legal Topics
Representative Suit, Section 35(1)(c) Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Order I Rule 8 CPC, Sameness of Interest, Class Action
Consumer Protection Civil Procedure Representative Suit Section 35(1)(c) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Order I Rule 8 CPC Sameness of Interest Class Action

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brigade Enterprises Limited

Appellant

Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Dated 05.04.2021 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (i.a. No. 7350 of 2020 in Consumer Case No. 880 of 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether National Commission correctly granted permission under Section 35(1)(c) to file a representative complaint on behalf of all purchasers of the project
  2. 2 Whether the respondents pleaded sameness of interest sufficient to invoke Section 35(1)(c) and Order I Rule 8 CPC
  3. 3 Whether the complaint should be treated as a representative complaint for all 1134 purchasers or as a joint complaint by the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The National Commission erred in granting permission under Section 35(1)(c) because the respondents failed to plead and establish 'sameness of interest' across all 1134 purchasers (notably no pleadings for Amber block's 386 apartments and no uniformity of delay), and therefore the complaint must be treated as a joint complaint by the respondents only and not as a representative complaint on behalf of all purchasers; other purchasers may be impleaded if their grievances align with the complaint.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission modified.

Orders

  • Impugned order permitting respondents to file complaint in a representative capacity on behalf of all owners of 1134 flats is modified.
  • The complaint shall be treated as a joint complaint filed on behalf of only the respondents (the 91 persons/51 apartments) and not as a complaint in a representative capacity for all 1134 purchasers.