EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus HIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS

EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus HIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS

Dismissal by this Court of the appellant's appeals in Pawan Gupta by non-reasoned orders does not create a binding precedent under Article 141 and operates only as res judicata inter partes; it does not preclude the National Commission from re-examining claims in other allottees' cases where different evidence (such as architect certificates and reports) has been placed on record. The complaints in the present matters are not barred by limitation because the cause of action arose when the appellant compelled payments without furnishing particulars and when conveyance deeds were executed (2018–2020). The impugned NCDRC order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of...

Parties
Appellant: Experion Developers Private Limited; Respondents: Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (consumer Case No. 34/2022)
Outcome
Impugned judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 16.01.2023 set aside; matter remanded to National Commission for fresh consideration.
Legal Topics
Limitation, Cause of Action, Doctrine of Merger, Res Judicata, Acquiescence, Estoppel, Precedent, Remand
Consumer Protection Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Limitation Cause of Action Doctrine of Merger +5 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Experion Developers Private Limited

Appellant

Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (consumer Case No. 34/2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the NCDRC was right to direct refund for amounts collected towards alleged excess sale area
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of appeals in Pawan Gupta operates as a binding precedent under Article 141 or as res judicata, and whether that precludes re-examination in other allottees' cases
  3. 3 When the 'cause of action' arose for limitation under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Ratio Decidendi

Dismissal by this Court of the appellant's appeals in Pawan Gupta by non-reasoned orders does not create a binding precedent under Article 141 and operates only as res judicata inter partes; it does not preclude the National Commission from re-examining claims in other allottees' cases where different evidence (such as architect certificates and reports) has been placed on record. The complaints in the present matters are not barred by limitation because the cause of action arose when the appellant compelled payments without furnishing particulars and when conveyance deeds were executed (2018–2020). The impugned NCDRC order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of...

Court Disposition

Impugned judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 16.01.2023 set aside; matter remanded to National Commission for fresh consideration.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 16.01.2023 set aside
  • Matter remanded to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for fresh consideration of the issues and evidence in accordance with the observations and directions in this judgment