3 articles tagged with Consumer Law. Latest first.
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal by Puthur Service Co-operative Bank, holding that Consumer Protection Act forums retain jurisdiction over deposit disputes even where the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act provides its own remedy.
The National Commission held that a State Consumer Commission has no power to return complaints and directed revival of five flat-buyer cases pending since 2018.
Almost every flat buyer in India whose project was running between March 2020 and the long tail of pandemic disruption has heard the builder's defence — the delay in handing over possession is on account of COVID-19, the agreement-for-sale's force-majeure clause is engaged, no delay compensation is payable, and the period of disruption must be added to the contractual possession date. The defence is rarely as clean as the builder pleads. Force majeure in Indian law runs on two analytically distinct tracks. Where the contract contains a force-majeure clause that names the supervening event, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 treats the matter as a contingent contract under Section 32 — the parties have allocated the risk in advance, and whether the event excuses performance is a question of construction of the clause's wording and proof that the event was the actual cause of the delay. Where the contract is silent on the event, the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applies — the contract is discharged only if the supervening event renders the performance impossible or radically different from what the parties contemplated, a high bar that the Supreme Court fixed in Satyabrata Ghose v Mugneeram Bangur & Co , AIR 1954 SC 44 and reaffirmed in Energy Watchdog v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission , (2017) 14 SCC 80. Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni , (2020) 10 SCC 783 and the National Commission's COVID-era line have applied the framework to real-estate delays — the builder's force-majeure plea succeeds only on proof that the pandemic period substantively affected the specific construction activity, only for the actual duration of disruption, never where the project was already in delay before March 2020, and never as a blanket excuse for the entire COVID period. This guide tracks the framework, the recurring builder defences, and the buyer's rebuttal.
This page collects every article on LegalRepublic.in that has been tagged Consumer Law. As writers publish more pieces touching on this topic, they will appear here automatically.
