LITIGATING HAND

Vide the instant decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Hon’ble NCLAT interfering with the commercial wisdom of CoC while approving Resolution Plan submitted by other Resolution Applicant and denying any further extension to Respondent herein.

In the instant Civil appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no bar against several consumers filing joint complaint and a complaint in representative capacity. For attracting the provisions of Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint filed by one or more consumers should be on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers having same interest. It does not mean that where there are only very few consumers having the same interest, they cannot even join together and file a single complaint, but should take recourse only to independent and separate complaints.

While allowing the appeal and directing the Respondents to grant disability pension to the appellant in accordance with the rules and regulations as are applicable to the Members of the Territorial Army with effect from 1st January 2012, the Hon’ble Court made following observation on the reliance placed on a document by the Respondents.

In the instant appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that payment of price is essential for a valid sale. Failing this, a sale deed is void and does not even need a declaration as such a plea can be set in collateral proceedings.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the instant petition set aside awarding of pendente lite and future interest by arbitrator despite the agreement forbidding award of interest. The Hon’ble Court held that Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act, by using the words “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” categorically specifies that the arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract insofar as award of interest from the date of cause of action to date of the award is concerned.