WAKE UP INDIA

Landmark Orders of MahaRERA by The Law Suits

2026-06-13T08:04:19.172-07:00

MahaRERA has directed Skyline Construction Co (a wing of RNA Corp) to pay full compensation to home buyer with interest https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2018/11/maharera-has-directed-skyline.html

MahaRERA order comes after developer failed to refund Vrajesh Hirjee and Kiku Sharda their money: https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/recovery-warrants-against-developer-over-actors-flats/articleshow/71678837.html

MahaRERA Grants Highest Ever Refund of Rs5.17 Crore with 10.4% Interest to Home-buyer: https://www.moneylife.in/article/maharera-grants-highest-ever-refund-of-rs517-crore-with-104-percentage-interest-to-homebuyer/61656.html

The Law Suits, Best Law Firm in Mumbai, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Kolkata, Indore, Pune & Pan-India https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2026/03/best-law-firm-in-mumbai-delhi-andhra.html

RNA Builder does "GOL MAAL" in possession date with Actor Vrajesh Hirjee RERA orders refund entire amount with Interest: https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2019/02/rna-builder-does-gol-maal-in-possession.html?q=GolMaal

Why This Landmark MahaRERA Order Strengthens Homebuyers’ Rights Under RERA MahaRERA Orders Recovery Warrant After 8-Year RERA ...

MahaRERA Orders Builder to Hand Over Possession in 60 Days, Pay Interest for Delay in Malad East Project | The Law Suits Secures Relief for Homebuyer MahaRERA Orders Builder to Hand Over Possession in 60 ...

1st Order passed by Maha RERA against Ekta World https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2017/09/1st-order-passed-by-maha-rera-against.html

MahaRERA Grants Highest Ever Refund of Rs5.17 Crore with 10.4% Interest to Home-buyer: https://www.moneylife.in/article/maharera-grants-highest-ever-refund-of-rs517-crore-with-104-percentage-interest-to-homebuyer/61656.html

MahaRERA Grants Relief to Homebuyer for Delay in Possession

https://thelawsuits.in/maharera-grants-relief-to-homebuyer-for-delay-in-possession/

Risk of Losing Legal Remedies: Delay in MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Appeals

Risk of Losing Legal Remedies: Delay in MahaRERA ...

The Law Suits | Best RERA Advocate in Mumbai – Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-law-suits-best-rera-advocate-in.html

MahaRERA's U-Turn: The Controversial Twist in Builder Moratorium Benefit https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2023/09/mahareras-u-turn-controversial-twist-in.html

MahaRERA issues notice to developer Lokhandwala of Minerva project in Mahalaxmi for Cost mismatch and shortfall in deposits &non-compliance with the provisions of the RERA https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2023/07/maharera-issues-notice-to-developer.html

MahaRERA names 308 housing projects in insolvency process https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2023/04/maharera-names-308-housing-projects-in.html

MahaRERA denies relief to buyers stuck in stalled Santacruz project https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2023/01/maharera-denies-relief-to-buyers-stuck.html

Builder asked to refund actor for late possession: https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/builder-asked-to-refund-actor-for-late-possession/articleshow/68160997.html

Key MahaRERA Cases and Orders

Several notable cases spearheaded by Advocate Bhimani have been documented by the media: [1]

· Omkar Alta Monte, Malad: In a delayed possession case, Advocate Bhimani (via his firm The Law Suits) represented homebuyers who faced over a decade of delays. Journalist Satish Nandgaonkar detailed how the developer failed to comply with original MahaRERA orders, prompting the Bombay High Court to direct MahaRERA to expedite rulings on non-execution and recovery.

· RNA Exotica, Goregaon: Advocate Bhimani represented a buyer seeking a refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act after Skyline Constructions (RNA Group) missed its possession deadline by years. MahaRERA ordered the builder to refund ₹1.58 crore along with high interest to the buyer.

· Bhoomi Acropolis, Virar: Reported by Satish Nandgaonkar, this case involved over 600 residents left in the lurch by a developer who abandoned the township project after collecting money. The buyers approached MahaRERA seeking intervention against the builder's failure to deliver the flats on time.

· RNA Corp Headquarters: Highlighting the developer's failure to deliver, Advocate Bhimani publicly termed the RNA Group a "serial offender" after banks initiated debt recovery actions on the developer's properties

· Mumbai: MahaRERA grants partial relief to aggrieved homebuyers https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/mumbai-maharera-grants-partial-relief-to-aggrieved-homebuyer

Section 8 Of #MahaRERA - How To Complete The Stalled Project https://youtu.be/YqxLRonU0Aw?si=EXk1wYTBxKKItKvZ

MahaRERA says OC for bare shell not full OC, issues recovery warrant- Our matter is published MahaRERA in Hindustan Times, victory for Team TLS https://thelawsuits.in/maharera-says-oc-for-bare-shell-not-full-oc-issues-recovery-warrant-our-matter-is-published-in-hindustan-times-victory-for-team-tls/

MahaRERA: Orders builder’s properties to be auctioned to recover ₹6.8cr https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2023/01/maharera-orders-builders-properties-to.html

MahaRERA issues recovery warrant against developer RNA Corp https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2018/12/maharera-issues-recovery-warrant.html

MahaRERA Limits Developer Forfeiture to 2% on Booking Cancellation: Godrej Properties Case https://thelawsuits.in/maharera-limits-developer-forfeiture-to-2-on-booking-cancellation-godrej-properties-case/

Tribunal modifies #MahaRERA order, directs promoter Krishna Developers to pay interest from date of payments https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2023/06/tribunal-modifies-maharera-order.html

MahaRERA names 308 housing projects in insolvency process https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2023/04/maharera-names-308-housing-projects-in.html

MahaRERA to start online payment mode to ease the process of complaint registration against unregistered projects https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2018/08/maharera-to-start-online-payment-mode.html

Registration of 49 projects in Kalyan revoked for unfair trade practices MahaRERA https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2022/11/registration-of-49-projects-in-kalyan.html

Enforcing MAHARera Orders: Bombay High Court Sets 15-Day Deadline for Selling Builder’s Property in Case of Settlement Failure. https://thelawsuits.in/enforcing-maharera-orders-bombay-high-court-sets-15-day-deadline-for-selling-builders-property-in-case-of-settlement-failure/

MahaRERA directs a developer to refund entire cost to flat buyer along with Rs 5lakh for mental Harassment https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2018/04/maharera-directs-developer-to-refund.html

12 recovery officers hired to speed up execution of MahaRERA orders https://thelawsuits.in/12-recovery-officers-hired-to-speed-up-execution-of-maharera-orders/

Registration of 49 projects in Kalyan revoked

for unfair trade practices MahaRERA https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2022/11/registration-of-49-projects-in-kalyan.html

Dilatory Strategy’: MahaRERA Appellate, Tribunal Dismisses Appeal By Omkar & Era Realtors, Cites Inordinate Delay In Challenging ₹4.22 Cr Recovery Warrant https://thelawsuits.in/dilatory-strategy-maharera-appellate-tribunal-dismisses-appeal-by-omkar-era-realtors-cites-inordinate-delay-in-challenging-4-22-cr-recovery-warrant/

MahaRERA to verify commencement certificates before registering projects to improve transparency and also for consumer protection https://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2023/05/maharera-to-verify-commencement.html

Posted in Public Interest by Citizens Justice Forum
413, Golden Chambers, Opp. Tanishq Showroom,
Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Landmark CitiMall,
New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053

Mobile: +91 89283 72392
Email: adv.bhimani@gmail.com
Website: www.thelawsuits.in

Eye Surgeon Ordered to Pay ₹7.5 Lakh for Failure to Obtain Proper Informed Consent: A Landmark Reminder of Patients’ Rights

2026-06-08T09:29:33.686-07:00

Eye Surgeon Ordered to Pay ₹7.5 Lakh for Failure to Obtain Proper Informed Consent: A Landmark Reminder of Patients’ Rights

Reported by Times of India, LiveLaw, Free Press Journal and Law Trend, the ruling highlights why informed consent is no mere formality under Indian medical negligence law.

A significant judgment of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has once again brought the spotlight on one of the most fundamental rights of every patient—the right to informed consent before undergoing medical treatment.

The decision, which has attracted widespread attention after being reported by The Times of India, LiveLaw, Free Press Journal and Law Trend, arose from a complaint filed by Dombivli resident Mrs. Rajani Malik, who permanently lost vision in her operated eye following cataract surgery. The Commission ultimately awarded compensation of approximately ₹7.5 lakh and held that the treating surgeon had failed to obtain proper and legally valid informed consent before performing the procedure.

The case involved ophthalmic surgeon Dr. Ashok T. Bhole of Hiramb Eye Hospital. According to the findings recorded by the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission and subsequently reported by leading legal and mainstream media publications, the consent form relied upon by the doctor was merely a pre-printed document bearing the patient’s signature. It did not adequately disclose the nature of the surgery, the attendant risks, possible complications, available alternatives, or the potential consequences that could arise from the procedure.

The ruling has generated considerable discussion among legal professionals, consumer rights advocates and healthcare practitioners because it reiterates a principle that is often overlooked in medical practice: obtaining a patient’s signature is not the same as obtaining informed consent.

As reported by LiveLaw, the Commission observed that a pre-printed consent form without disclosure of surgical risks cannot be regarded as valid informed consent. The Commission noted that there was no meaningful disclosure regarding the specific risks associated with the surgery, including the possibility of severe complications and loss of vision.

The Times of India reported that the Commission held the doctor liable for deficiency in service on account of the failure to obtain proper informed consent. The Commission further observed that if the complainant had been adequately informed about the possibility of permanent loss of vision or even loss of the eye itself, it could not automatically be presumed that she would have agreed to undergo the procedure.

The Free Press Journal, while reporting the judgment, highlighted that the complainant had lost vision following cataract surgery and was awarded compensation by the Consumer Commission. Law Trend similarly reported that the surgeon was held liable for failing to disclose specific risks in the consent process and that the Consumer Commission treated the omission as a serious deficiency in service.

The importance of this ruling extends far beyond the facts of a single case. It serves as a reminder that informed consent is not a routine administrative requirement but a legal and ethical obligation rooted in the patient’s right to autonomy and self-determination. Every patient has the right to understand the nature of the proposed treatment, the risks involved, the alternatives available and the possible consequences before deciding whether to proceed.

Indian courts have consistently recognised that a patient cannot be expected to make an informed decision without being provided adequate information. A signed document may establish that a signature was obtained; it does not necessarily establish that the patient understood the treatment, appreciated the risks or knowingly accepted the consequences.

The Rajani Malik judgment also reflects a broader trend in medical negligence litigation across India. Consumer Commissions are increasingly examining not only the technical aspects of medical treatment but also the quality of communication between doctors and patients. In many disputes, the critical issue is no longer whether a complication occurred but whether the patient was adequately informed about the possibility of that complication before consenting to treatment.

The decision is therefore likely to be cited in future cases involving medical negligence, cataract surgery complications, informed consent, hospital liability, consumer protection and patient rights. It reinforces the legal position that healthcare providers must engage in meaningful communication with patients rather than rely solely upon standardised forms and paperwork.

For patients and their families, the case offers valuable lessons. Medical records, prescriptions, diagnostic reports, discharge summaries and consent forms should always be carefully preserved. These documents frequently become crucial evidence when disputes arise regarding treatment, accountability and compensation.

At the same time, it is important to recognise that not every adverse medical outcome amounts to negligence. Medicine is not an exact science, and complications may arise despite the exercise of reasonable skill and care. However, where material risks are not disclosed and informed consent is not properly obtained, liability may arise even if the procedure itself was technically performed with competence.

The widespread reporting of this judgment by leading legal and mainstream publications demonstrates the growing public importance of informed consent in healthcare. More importantly, it sends a clear message that patients are entitled to participate in decisions affecting their health and that medical practitioners must respect that right through full, fair and transparent disclosure.

The matter was successfully argued on behalf of the complainant by Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani, Founder of The Law Suits. Over the years, The Law Suits has represented numerous consumers, homebuyers and citizens before Consumer Commissions and various judicial forums. Several matters handled by the firm have received coverage in leading publications including LiveLaw, Hindustan Times, Free Press Journal, Mumbai Mirror and other national media platforms.

The Law Suits has developed a significant practice in consumer protection law, medical negligence litigation, real estate disputes, housing society matters and public interest causes. Through litigation, legal awareness programmes, webinars and public education initiatives, the firm has consistently worked towards strengthening consumer rights and access to justice.

Advocates practising in the field of consumer protection law regard judgments relating to informed consent as increasingly significant because they sit at the intersection of medical ethics, patient autonomy and consumer rights. As awareness grows and patients become better informed about their legal remedies, healthcare institutions may be required to revisit their consent procedures and documentation practices to ensure compliance with evolving legal standards.

The Rajani Malik judgment is ultimately about more than compensation. It is about recognising a patient’s right to make an informed choice. The decision reaffirms a simple but powerful legal principle that every hospital, doctor and patient should remember: a signature may indicate consent, but only knowledge and understanding can create informed consent.

About The Law Suits

The Law Suits is a Mumbai-based law firm founded by Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani. The firm regularly advises and represents clients in matters relating to consumer protection, medical negligence, real estate disputes, housing society litigation and public interest matters. Several landmark matters handled by the firm have contributed to consumer rights jurisprudence and have been reported by leading legal and mainstream publications.

If you or a family member have suffered due to suspected medical negligence, lack of informed consent, surgical complications, hospital negligence, deficiency in medical services, builder misconduct or consumer rights violations, understanding your legal rights at an early stage can be crucial. Timely legal advice may assist in evaluating the remedies available under consumer protection law and other applicable legal provisions.

Author: Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani
Founder, The Law Suits

The Law Suits
413, Golden Chambers, Opp. Tanishq Showroom,
Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Landmark CitiMall,
New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053

Mobile: +91 89283 72392
Email: info@thelawsuits.in adv.bhimani@gmail.com
Website: www.thelawsuits.in

Sources

Times of India – Eye Surgeon to Pay Compensation for Failure to Obtain Proper Informed Consent, Eye surgeon to pay ₹7.5L for failing to get ‘informed consent’ before op https://epaper.indiatimes.com/arte-share?article=05_06_2026_005_013_toim_TOI

LIVE LAW: Maharashtra State Commission: Pre-Printed Consent Form Without Disclosure Of Surgical Risks Is Not Valid Infor… https://www.livelaw.in/consumer-cases/maharashtra-state-commission-pre-printed-consent-form-without-disclosure-of-surgical-risks-is-not-valid-informed-consent-doctor-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-536

Free Press Journal – Maharashtra Consumer Commission Awards ₹7 Lakh To Dombivli Woman Who Lost Vision After Cataract Surgery https://freepressjournal.in/mumbai/maharashtra-consumer-commission-awards-7-lakh-to-dombivli-woman-who-lost-vision-after-cataract-surgery

Law Trend – Ophthalmic Surgeon Liable for Failing to Disclose Specific Risks in Consent Form: Consumer Court Awards Rs 7 Lakh Compensation https://lawtrend.in/ophthalmic-surgeon-liable-for-failing-to-disclose-specific-risks-in-consent-form-consumer-court-awards-rs-7-lakh-compensation/

BIG Relief for Mumbai Housing Societies: Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Ruling on Managing Committee Dispute

2026-05-20T01:53:32.264-07:00

In a significant development impacting Cooperative Housing Societies across Maharashtra, particularly in Mumbai, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has stayed the operation of a landmark Bombay High Court judgment delivered by Justice Amit Borkar in the matter of Suresh Agarwal & Ors. vs. Sudhir Agarwal & Ors. The dispute revolves around the constitutional validity of a managing committee after multiple resignations reduced the committee strength below the statutory threshold prescribed under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

The Supreme Court, while issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition, directed the parties to maintain status quo as prevailing on 31 December 2025, thereby effectively putting the Bombay High Court ruling into suspension for the time being.

This order has triggered widespread discussion among housing society members, redevelopment consultants, managing committees, cooperative law practitioners, and flat purchasers in Mumbai because thousands of societies in Maharashtra function with casual vacancies, resignations, co-option disputes, and internal political battles.

Also read MahaRERA Orders Builder to Hand Over Possession in 60 Days, Pay Interest for Delay in Malad East Project | The Law Suits Secures Relief for Homebuyer

Why This Judgment Is Creating Massive Discussion in Mumbai Housing Societies

Mumbai’s redevelopment ecosystem is deeply dependent on the functioning of managing committees. In many societies, committee resignations, factional disputes, allegations of manipulation, and attempts to stall redevelopment are common. The Bombay High Court judgment had created serious concerns because it laid down an extremely strict interpretation of Section 154B-19 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

The High Court held that if the number of elected committee members falls below “more than two-third” of the sanctioned strength at any point during the tenure, the committee ceases to remain legally constituted.

In simple words — “Committee toot gayi toh power khatam.” This interpretation, if implemented universally, could have destabilized hundreds of societies where resignations occur during redevelopment conflicts.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute arose in relation to Splendor Complex CHS Limited situated at Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai. The society had a sanctioned managing committee strength of 19 members. However, after several resignations, the committee strength allegedly reduced substantially.

The contesting member argued that once the elected strength fell below 13 members — which is more than two-third of 19 — the committee lost its legal authority to function. According to the challenge, such a weakened committee could not continue passing resolutions, conducting meetings, or initiating co-option procedures.

On the other hand, the managing committee argued that the committee was validly constituted on the date of election itself and later vacancies would not invalidate the committee. They further argued that quorum and constitution are separate legal concepts.

A lso read on Hindustan Times: Time restrictions on filing insurance claims are void: HC

What the Bombay High Court Held

Justice Amit Borkar delivered an elaborate judgment interpreting Sections 154B-19, 154B-22, and Rule 74 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Election Rules.

The High Court held that:

The constitution of a managing committee is a continuous requirement and not merely a one-time event occurring on the date of election.
The committee must continuously maintain “more than two-third” elected strength during its tenure.
If elected strength falls below the statutory threshold, the committee automatically loses legal validity.
Co-option cannot be used to revive a committee that has already lost constitutional strength.
Reserved vacant seats can be ignored only for quorum purposes and not for determining constitutional validity.

The Court further observed that the law does not permit a small minority group to continue controlling the affairs of a cooperative society after losing democratic majority support.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the restraint against the committee from conducting meetings or passing resolutions.

Also read Unregistered Family Settlement vs. Registered Gift Deeds: A Landmark Mumbai Arbitral Award

The Supreme Court’s Intervention Changes the Entire Landscape

The matter was immediately challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through Special Leave Petitions.

A Bench comprising J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard the matter on 5 January 2026.

The Supreme Court issued notice and directed all parties to maintain status quo prevailing as on 31 December 2025.

Though the order is interim in nature, its practical impact is enormous because it prevents immediate implementation of the Bombay High Court ruling and temporarily protects societies from sudden administrative paralysis.

Why the Supreme Court Stay Is Important for Redevelopment Projects

Across Mumbai and Maharashtra, redevelopment projects frequently witness:

Political rivalry within societies
Mass resignations by committee members
Allegations of coercion
Committee instability
Litigation filed to stop redevelopment
Challenges to co-option procedures
Registrar intervention under Sections 77A and 78

If the Bombay High Court judgment had remained operational without interruption, many redevelopment committees would have faced immediate challenges regarding their legal existence.

Developers, banks, project consultants, architects, and purchasers would also have faced uncertainty regarding resolutions passed by such committees.

The Supreme Court’s interim protection has therefore provided temporary relief and administrative breathing space.

The Larger Legal Question Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will now likely decide a very important question affecting Cooperative Housing Societies throughout Maharashtra:

Does a managing committee remain valid after subsequent resignations reduce its elected strength below two-third?

The answer to this question will have statewide consequences.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Bombay High Court view, many societies may require fresh elections whenever committee strength falls below the statutory threshold.

If the Supreme Court reverses the High Court entirely, committees may continue functioning despite later resignations, provided quorum requirements are maintained.

This will directly affect redevelopment approvals, conveyance decisions, appointment of developers, bank permissions, litigation authority, and execution of redevelopment agreements.

Impact on Society Members and Flat Purchasers

For ordinary flat purchasers and society members, this litigation highlights one important reality:

“Society politics can directly affect redevelopment, property value, and legal rights.”

Many members assume internal committee disputes are minor issues. However, committee validity affects:

Redevelopment resolutions
Appointment of developers
Execution of Development Agreements
Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA)
Corpus approvals
Tender processes
Litigation authority
Society bank operations

A single legal defect in committee constitution can delay projects for years.

Legal Experts Say the Final Verdict Will Become a Landmark Precedent

Cooperative law practitioners believe the final Supreme Court ruling may become one of the most important judgments on Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Society governance in recent years.

The interpretation of Sections 154B-19 and 154B-22 may permanently define:

What constitutes a valid committee;
Whether democratic majority must continue throughout tenure;
How co-option powers can be exercised;
When Registrar intervention becomes mandatory.

The ruling may also affect ongoing disputes before:

Cooperative Courts
Cooperative Appellate Courts
Deputy Registrars
Divisional Joint Registrars
Bombay High Court
MahaRERA-linked redevelopment disputes

Final Observation

The dispute between the rival factions of Splendor Complex CHS Limited has now evolved into a much larger legal battle concerning the future governance of Cooperative Housing Societies in Maharashtra.

While the Bombay High Court adopted a strict democratic interpretation requiring continuous maintenance of elected strength, the Supreme Court’s interim stay indicates that the issue requires deeper examination at the highest judicial level.

For now, housing societies, redevelopment committees, and flat purchasers across Mumbai will closely watch the final outcome because the eventual judgment may redefine the legal framework governing cooperative society administration in Maharashtra.

This article is posted in public interest and awareness by Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani, Founder of The Law Suits and President of Citizens Justice Forum (NGO).

The Law Suits
413, Golden Chambers, Opp. Tanishq Showroom,
Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station,
Landmark CitiMall, New Link Road,
Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053

Contact: +91-9323642089
Email: info@thelawsuits.in
www.thelawsuits.in

Order Copy of Supreme Court

Order Copy Of Bombay Court

The Law Suits, Best Law Firm in Mumbai, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Kolkata, Indore, Pune & Pan-India

2026-03-01T11:10:00.000-08:00

The Law Suits, Best Law Firm in Mumbai, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Kolkata, Indore, Pune & Pan-India

When legal rights are at stake, choosing the right law firm can change everything. The Law Suits is widely regarded as one of the best law firms in Mumbai and Andheri, known for strong courtroom advocacy, strategic legal thinking, and a client-first approach.

Recognized by clients as a best advocate in Mumbai and a trusted best lawyer in Andheri, The Law Suits provides effective legal representation in real estate litigation, consumer cases, civil disputes, family law, and NCLT matters.

We believe law is not just about winning cases—it is about protecting people, safeguarding rights, and delivering justice when it matters most.

Our Core Legal Practice Areas RERA & Real Estate Litigation – Best Advocate for RERA Cases

The Law Suits is widely recognized as a best advocate for RERA matters in Mumbai and Andheri. We represent homebuyers and investors against unfair builder practices before RERA Authorities, Appellate Tribunals, Consumer Commissions, and High Courts.

Our real estate legal services include:

RERA complaints against builders and developers

Delayed possession and refund claims with interest

Builder–buyer disputes and compensation matters

Stalled projects and redevelopment-related litigation

If you are looking for the best law firm in Andheri for real estate disputes, our team ensures your legal and financial interests are fully protected.

Consumer Protection & Consumer Court Lawyers Best Lawyer for Consumer Cases

As experienced consumer court lawyers, we handle cases before District, State, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Clients trust us as the best lawyer for consumer cases due to our focused and result-oriented litigation strategy.

We handle:

Deficiency of services

Unfair trade practices

Misleading advertisements

Defective products and service failures

Our objective is fair compensation, accountability, and consumer justice.

Medical Negligence Cases Best Lawyer for Medical Negligence Cases

Medical negligence cases demand strong legal expertise and sensitive handling. The Law Suits is trusted as the best lawyer for medical negligence cases, representing patients and families affected by wrongful medical treatment with care and professionalism.

Domestic Violence & Family Law Support Best Advocate in Andheri for Family Matters

Family disputes require confidentiality and empathy. As a best advocate in Andheri, we provide compassionate and strategic legal support under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Our services include:

Protection and residence orders

Maintenance and monetary relief

Legal assistance for victims of abuse

Sensitive and confidential case handling

We stand firmly for dignity, safety, and justice.

Senior Citizens Legal Protection – Senior Citizens Act, 2007

The Law Suits is a trusted legal advisor for senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

We assist in:

Revocation of gift deeds

Recovery of property from errant children

Enforcement of maintenance and protection orders

We protect the rights, dignity, and assets of senior citizens.

Redevelopment & Housing Society Legal Experts

Recognized as one of the best law firms in Mumbai for redevelopment matters, we advise housing societies and individual members on complex redevelopment issues.

Our expertise includes:

Redevelopment disputes and delays

Builder non-compliance

Illegal agreements and documentation issues

Tendering, PAAA, and redevelopment agreements

Deemed conveyance and conveyance through Consumer Forums

NCLT & NCLAT Litigation Best Lawyer for NCLT Matters

The Law Suits is also recognized as the best lawyer for NCLT and NCLAT matters, handling corporate and insolvency disputes with precision and efficiency.

Arbitration for Fast, Confidential & Enforceable Legal Remedies

The Law Suits, recognized as a Best Law Firm in Andheri Mumbai, offers comprehensive arbitration legal services for commercial disputes, builder-buyer agreements, redevelopment conflicts, and corporate matters. Our experienced arbitration lawyers in Mumbai handle the entire arbitration process—from invocation and interim reliefs to arbitral proceedings and enforcement or challenge of arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Backed by strong expertise in Consumer Court, RERA, and NCLT litigation, we adopt a multi-forum, result-driven strategy to deliver fast, confidential, and legally enforceable outcomes, making The Law Suits a preferred choice for clients seeking the best arbitration lawyer in Andheri, Mumbai.

Anticipatory Bail & Regular Bail in Andheri West, Mumbai

The Law Suits, a Best Law Firm in Andheri Mumbai, provides urgent and effective legal representation for anticipatory bail and regular bail matters across Andheri West, Andheri East, Borivali, Goregaon, Bandra, and Mumbai suburbs. Our experienced bail lawyers and criminal advocates appear before Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, and the Bombay High Court to secure immediate protection against arrest and unlawful detention. Known for swift drafting, strong oral arguments, and result-driven strategy, The Law Suits is a preferred choice for clients searching for the best bail advocate in Andheri and Mumbai.

People Also Ask

Q1. Who is the best bail lawyer in Mumbai?
A reputed bail lawyer in Mumbai is one who has strong courtroom experience, understands urgent criminal remedies, and regularly handles anticipatory and regular bail matters before Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, and the Bombay High Court. Law firms based in Andheri with active criminal practice are often preferred for quick relief.

Q2. When should I apply for anticipatory bail?
Anticipatory bail should be applied for immediately when there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest in a criminal case. Early legal action significantly improves chances of protection and prevents unnecessary custody.

Q3. What is the difference between anticipatory bail and regular bail?
Anticipatory bail is sought before arrest to prevent custody, whereas regular bail is applied for after a person has been arrested. Both require strong legal drafting and effective court arguments.

Q4. Which courts handle bail matters in Mumbai?
Bail applications are handled by Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, and the Bombay High Court, depending on the nature and seriousness of the offence.

Q5. Can false or family disputes be covered under anticipatory bail?
Yes. Many false, motivated, and family-related complaints qualify for anticipatory bail if properly presented with facts and legal grounds.

Best Bail Lawyer / Advocate in Mumbai
The Law Suits, a leading law firm in Andheri West, Mumbai, provides urgent legal assistance for anticipatory bail and regular bail before Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, and the Bombay High Court, ensuring swift protection of personal liberty in criminal cases.

Why Clients Choose The Law Suits

One of the best here law firms in Andheri, Mumbai

Trusted best advocate in Mumbai and Andheri

Strong expertise in RERA, Consumer, Civil, Redevelopment, Arbitration, Criminal and NCLT litigation

Clear communication and transparent case handling

Client-centric legal strategies

Experienced advocates with courtroom excellence

At The Law Suits, we do not just fight cases—we stand by our clients.

Contact The Law Suits – Your Legal Partner in Mumbai

Phone: +91 89283 72392

Website: www.thelawsuits.in

Email: adv.bhimani@gmail.com

The Law Suits

Where Law Meets Justice.

Address The Law Suits

413, golden Chambers, Opp Tanishq Showroom,

Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Landmark CitiMall,

Andheri Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400053

The Law Suits | Best RERA Advocate in Mumbai – Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani

2026-02-09T02:44:00.000-08:00

The Law Suits – The Best Law Firms in Andheri Mumbai

Recognized by clients as a best advocate in Mumbai and a trusted best lawyer in Andheri, The Law Suits provides effective legal representation in real estate litigation, consumer cases, civil disputes, family law, and NCLT matters.

We believe law is not just about winning cases—it is about protecting people, safeguarding rights, and delivering justice when it matters most.

Our Core Legal Practice Areas RERA & Real Estate Litigation – Best Advocate for RERA Cases

The Law Suits is widely recognized as a best advocate for RERA matters in Mumbai and Andheri. We represent homebuyers and investors against unfair builder practices before RERA Authorities, Appellate Tribunals, Consumer Commissions, and High Courts.

Our real estate legal services include:

RERA complaints against builders and developers

Delayed possession and refund claims with interest

Builder–buyer disputes and compensation matters

Stalled projects and redevelopment-related litigation

If you are looking for the best law firm in Andheri for real estate disputes, our team ensures your legal and financial interests are fully protected.

Consumer Protection & Consumer Court Lawyers Best Lawyer for Consumer Cases

As experienced consumer court lawyers, we handle cases before District, State, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Clients trust us as the best lawyer for consumer cases due to our focused and result-oriented litigation strategy.

We handle:

Deficiency of services

Unfair trade practices

Misleading advertisements

Defective products and service failures

Our objective is fair compensation, accountability, and consumer justice.

Medical Negligence Cases Best Lawyer for Medical Negligence Cases

Medical negligence cases demand strong legal expertise and sensitive handling. The Law Suits is trusted as the best lawyer for medical negligence cases, representing patients and families affected by wrongful medical treatment with care and professionalism.

Domestic Violence & Family Law Support Best Advocate in Andheri for Family Matters

Family disputes require confidentiality and empathy. As a best advocate in Andheri, we provide compassionate and strategic legal support under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Our services include:

Protection and residence orders

Maintenance and monetary relief

Legal assistance for victims of abuse

Sensitive and confidential case handling

We stand firmly for dignity, safety, and justice.

Senior Citizens Legal Protection – Senior Citizens Act, 2007

The Law Suits is a trusted legal advisor for senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

We assist in:

Revocation of gift deeds

Recovery of property from errant children

Enforcement of maintenance and protection orders

We protect the rights, dignity, and assets of senior citizens.

Redevelopment & Housing Society Legal Experts

Recognized as one of the best law firms in Mumbai for redevelopment matters, we advise housing societies and individual members on complex redevelopment issues.

Our expertise includes:

Redevelopment disputes and delays

Builder non-compliance

Illegal agreements and documentation issues

Tendering, PAAA, and redevelopment agreements

Deemed conveyance and conveyance through Consumer Forums

NCLT & NCLAT Litigation Best Lawyer for NCLT Matters

The Law Suits is also recognized as the best lawyer for NCLT and NCLAT matters, handling corporate and insolvency disputes with precision and efficiency.

Arbitration for Fast, Confidential & Enforceable Legal Remedies

The Law Suits, recognized as a Best Law Firm in Andheri Mumbai, offers comprehensive arbitration legal services for commercial disputes, builder-buyer agreements, redevelopment conflicts, and corporate matters. Our experienced arbitration lawyers in Mumbai handle the entire arbitration process—from invocation and interim reliefs to arbitral proceedings and enforcement or challenge of arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Backed by strong expertise in Consumer Court, RERA, and NCLT litigation, we adopt a multi-forum, result-driven strategy to deliver fast, confidential, and legally enforceable outcomes, making The Law Suits a preferred choice for clients seeking the best arbitration lawyer in Andheri, Mumbai.

Anticipatory Bail & Regular Bail in Andheri West, Mumbai

The Law Suits, a Best Law Firm in Andheri Mumbai, provides urgent and effective legal representation for anticipatory bail and regular bail matters across Andheri West, Andheri East, Borivali, Goregaon, Bandra, and Mumbai suburbs. Our experienced bail lawyers and criminal advocates appear before Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, and the Bombay High Court to secure immediate protection against arrest and unlawful detention. Known for swift drafting, strong oral arguments, and result-driven strategy, The Law Suits is a preferred choice for clients searching for the best bail advocate in Andheri and Mumbai.

People Also Ask

Q1. Who is the best bail lawyer in Mumbai?
A reputed bail lawyer in Mumbai is one who has strong courtroom experience, understands urgent criminal remedies, and regularly handles anticipatory and regular bail matters before Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, and the Bombay High Court. Law firms based in Andheri with active criminal practice are often preferred for quick relief.

Q2. When should I apply for anticipatory bail?
Anticipatory bail should be applied for immediately when there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest in a criminal case. Early legal action significantly improves chances of protection and prevents unnecessary custody.

Q3. What is the difference between anticipatory bail and regular bail?
Anticipatory bail is sought before arrest to prevent custody, whereas regular bail is applied for after a person has been arrested. Both require strong legal drafting and effective court arguments.

Q4. Which courts handle bail matters in Mumbai?
Bail applications are handled by Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, and the Bombay High Court, depending on the nature and seriousness of the offence.

Q5. Can false or family disputes be covered under anticipatory bail?
Yes. Many false, motivated, and family-related complaints qualify for anticipatory bail if properly presented with facts and legal grounds.

Best Bail Lawyer / Advocate in Mumbai
The Law Suits, a leading law firm in Andheri West, Mumbai, provides urgent legal assistance for anticipatory bail and regular bail before Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, and the Bombay High Court, ensuring swift protection of personal liberty in criminal cases.

Why Clients Choose The Law Suits

One of the best here law firms in Andheri, Mumbai

Trusted best advocate in Mumbai and Andheri

Strong expertise in RERA, Consumer, Civil, Redevelopment, Arbitration, Criminal and NCLT litigation

Clear communication and transparent case handling

Client-centric legal strategies

Experienced advocates with courtroom excellence

At The Law Suits, we do not just fight cases—we stand by our clients.

Contact The Law Suits – Your Legal Partner in Mumbai

Phone: +91 89283 72392

Website: www.thelawsuits.in

Email: adv.bhimani@gmail.com

The Law Suits

Where Law Meets Justice.

Address The Law Suits

413, golden Chambers, Opp Tanishq Showroom,

Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Landmark CitiMall,

Andheri Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400053

MahaRERA Orders Recovery Warrant After 8-Year RERA Legal Battle

2026-01-25T16:02:00.000-08:00

Why This Landmark MahaRERA Order Strengthens Homebuyers’ Rights Under RERA

Authored by Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani | The Law Suits – Best Law Firm in Mumbai

After a prolonged and arduous legal battle spanning more than eight years, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has once again sent a strong and unequivocal message: orders passed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 are not merely declaratory in nature but are fully enforceable decrees in law

In a decisive order dated 22 January 2026, MahaRERA allowed a review-cum-rectification application and issued a fresh recovery warrant under Section 40(1) of the RERA Act, directing recovery of ₹2.05 crore plus interest of ₹1,63,86,266 (interest calculated till 31 January 2026) at MCLR + 2%, with further interest continuing until realisation.

The case stands out not merely for the quantum involved, but for the Authority’s firm stand against procedural abuse by developers who attempted to frustrate the execution of a final order passed as far back as April 2022.

Also read Fit-Out Possession Without Completion Certificate is Illegal: Chandigarh State Consumer Commission Holds Omaxe Liable for Delay

Background of the Dispute

The dispute arose from the booking of two residential flats in a MahaRERA-registered project in Borivali, Mumbai. Despite full payment of consideration, stamp duty, and registration charges, possession was never handed over, compelling the homebuyer to approach MahaRERA in 2018.

By its final order dated 18 April 2022, MahaRERA had:

- Protected the allottee’s rights

- Directed refund of the entire consideration

- Awarded interest under Section 18 of RERA

- Clarified limited applicability of COVID moratorium notifications

However, instead of complying, the builder and the associated trust engaged in prolonged delay tactics, forcing the allottee into repeated execution proceedings.

Execution, Review & Rectification: No Escape Through Technicalities

In December 2024, MahaRERA issued a recovery warrant, but due to a clerical error in recording flat numbers and consideration amounts, the complainant was compelled to file a review application.

In the present order, MahaRERA categorically held that:

- Errors in recording consideration cannot dilute decretal rights

- Execution proceedings cannot reopen issues decided on merits

- Builders cannot exploit procedural lapses to avoid payment

The Authority corrected the record and confirmed that a total amount of ₹2,05,81,900, along with interest, is recoverable from the respondents.

Also Read Warring Couples Cannot Treat Courts As Battlefield: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage After 65 Days of Cohabitation & 40+ Cases

Appeal Withdrawn to Avoid Section 43(5) Deposit

Significantly, the respondents filed an appeal against the MahaRERA order but later withdrew it, as they were unwilling to comply with Section 43(5) of RERA, which mandates deposit of the entire decretal amount as a pre-condition to maintain an appeal.

This withdrawal exposed the respondents’ lack of bona fide intent and further justified the issuance of a coercive recovery warrant.

Fresh Recovery Warrant Issued

By its order dated 22 January 2026, MahaRERA has now:

- Recalled the earlier execution order

- Issued a fresh recovery warrant under Section 40(1) read with Rule 3

- Directed recovery of:

₹2,05,81,900 (principal amount)

₹1,63,86,266 (interest calculated till 31 January 2026)

Further interest at MCLR + 2% from 1 February 2026 till recovery

The Authority clarified that moratorium periods were already factored in, and could not be used as a shield against liability.

Strategic Legal Representation That Made the Difference

The matter was handled by Sharon Fernandez and Sulaiman Bhimani, who represented the allottee through The Law Suits.

Their role was pivotal in:

- Securing the original MahaRERA order

- Successfully pursuing review and rectification

- Ensuring effective execution and recovery

- Preventing dilution of the homebuyer’s rights through procedural abuse

This case further strengthens The Law Suits’ reputation as the Best Law Firm in Mumbai for RERA and real-estate litigation, particularly in complex execution and enforcement matters.

Conclusion: A Strong Message to Errant Developers

This order sends a clear and unequivocal signal:

Developers cannot defeat homebuyers by delay, attrition, or abandoned appeals.

MahaRERA has reaffirmed that execution is not optional, and that Section 43(5) of RERA is a mandatory safeguard—not a formality.

For homebuyers facing delayed possession or refund disputes, this judgment reinforces confidence that RERA, when pursued decisively, delivers results.

Click Here to Read and Download The Order

The Law Suits,

413, Golden Chambers, Opp Tanishq Showroom,
Next to Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, LandMark CitiMall,
Andheri Link Road, Andheri West Mumbai 400053 +91 8928 372392
adv.Bhimani@gmail.com

#MahaRERA #RERA #RERAOrders #RecoveryWarrant #HomebuyersRights #RealEstateLaw #RERALitigation #RERAEnforcement #Section43_5 #RERACompliance #ExecutionProceedings #LegalEnforcement #JusticeForHomebuyers #TheLawSuits #BestLawFirmInMumbai #AdvSulaimanBhimani #RERALawyerMumbai #RealEstateLawyer #LegalNews #LandmarkOrder #ConsumerRights #PropertyLaw #IndianLaw #LawAndJustice #LegalExplainer #KnowYourRights #RERACase #MumbaiRealEstate #LawForCitizens

The Law Suits – One of the Best Law Firms in Andheri Mumbai.

2026-01-23T10:06:00.000-08:00

The Law Suits – One of the Best Law Firms in Mumbai & Andheri.

Blog Article

We believe law is not just about winning cases—it is about protecting people, safeguarding rights, and delivering justice when it matters most.

Our Core Legal Practice Areas RERA & Real Estate Litigation – Best Advocate for RERA Cases

Our real estate legal services include:

RERA complaints against builders and developers

Delayed possession and refund claims with interest

Builder–buyer disputes and compensation matters

Stalled projects and redevelopment-related litigation

If you are looking for the best law firm in Andheri for real estate disputes, our team ensures your legal and financial interests are fully protected.

Consumer Protection & Consumer Court Lawyers Best Lawyer for Consumer Cases

We handle:

Deficiency of services

Unfair trade practices

Misleading advertisements

Defective products and service failures

Our objective is fair compensation, accountability, and consumer justice.

Medical Negligence Cases Best Lawyer for Medical Negligence Cases

Domestic Violence & Family Law Support Best Advocate in Andheri for Family Matters

Family disputes require confidentiality and empathy. As a best advocate in Andheri, we provide compassionate and strategic legal support under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Our services include:

Protection and residence orders

Maintenance and monetary relief

Legal assistance for victims of abuse

Sensitive and get more info confidential case handling

We stand firmly for dignity, safety, and justice.

Senior Citizens Legal Protection – Senior Citizens Act, 2007

The Law Suits is a trusted legal advisor for senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

We assist in:

Revocation of gift deeds

Recovery of property from errant children

Enforcement of maintenance and protection orders

We protect the rights, dignity, and assets of senior citizens.

Redevelopment & Housing Society Legal Experts

Recognized as one of the best law firms in Mumbai for redevelopment matters, we advise housing societies and individual members on complex redevelopment issues.

Our expertise includes:

Redevelopment disputes and delays

Builder non-compliance

Illegal agreements and documentation issues

Tendering, PAAA, and redevelopment agreements

Deemed conveyance and conveyance through Consumer Forums

NCLT & NCLAT Litigation Best Lawyer for NCLT Matters

The Law Suits is also recognized as the best lawyer for NCLT and NCLAT matters, handling corporate and insolvency disputes with precision and efficiency.

Why Clients Choose The Law Suits

One of the best law firms in Andheri and Mumbai

Trusted best advocate in Mumbai and Andheri

Strong expertise in RERA, consumer, civil, and NCLT litigation

Clear communication and transparent case handling

Client-centric legal strategies

Experienced advocates with courtroom excellence

At The Law Suits, we do not just fight cases—we stand by our clients.

Contact The Law Suits – Your Legal Partner in Mumbai

Phone: +91 89283 72392

Website: www.thelawsuits.in

Email: adv.bhimani@gmail.com

The Law Suits

Where Law Meets Justice.

The Law Suits – One of the Best Law Firms in Andheri, Mumbai

2026-01-13T16:28:00.000-08:00

We believe law is not just about winning cases—it is about protecting people, safeguarding rights, and delivering justice when it matters most.

Our Core Legal Practice Areas RERA & Real Estate Litigation – Best Advocate for RERA Cases

Our real estate legal services include:

RERA complaints against builders and developers

Delayed possession and refund claims with interest

Builder–buyer disputes and compensation matters

Stalled projects and redevelopment-related litigation

If you are looking for the best law firm in Andheri for real estate disputes, our team ensures your legal and financial interests are fully protected.

Consumer Protection & Consumer Court Lawyers Best Lawyer for Consumer Cases

We handle:

Deficiency of services

Unfair trade practices

Misleading advertisements

Defective products and service failures

Our objective is fair compensation, accountability, and consumer justice.

Medical Negligence Cases Best Lawyer for Medical Negligence Cases

Domestic Violence & Family Law Support Best Advocate in Andheri for Family Matters

Family disputes require confidentiality and empathy. As a best advocate in Andheri, we provide compassionate and strategic legal support under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Our services include:

Protection and residence orders

Maintenance and monetary relief

Legal assistance for victims of abuse

Sensitive and confidential case handling

We stand firmly for dignity, safety, and justice.

Senior Citizens Legal Protection – Senior Citizens Act, 2007

The Law Suits is a more info trusted legal advisor for senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

We assist in:

Revocation of gift deeds

Recovery of property from errant children

Enforcement of maintenance and protection orders

We protect the rights, dignity, and assets of senior citizens.

Redevelopment & Housing Society Legal Experts

Recognized as one of the best law firms in Mumbai for redevelopment matters, we advise housing societies and individual members on complex redevelopment issues.

Our expertise includes:

Redevelopment disputes and delays

Builder non-compliance

Illegal agreements and documentation issues

Tendering, PAAA, and redevelopment agreements

Deemed conveyance and conveyance through Consumer Forums

NCLT & NCLAT Litigation Best Lawyer for NCLT Matters

The Law Suits is also recognized as the best lawyer for NCLT and NCLAT matters, handling corporate and insolvency disputes with precision and efficiency.

Why Clients Choose The Law Suits

One of the best law firms in Andheri and Mumbai

Trusted best advocate in Mumbai and Andheri

Strong expertise in RERA, consumer, civil, and NCLT litigation

Clear communication and transparent case handling

Client-centric legal strategies

Experienced advocates with courtroom excellence

At The Law Suits, we do not just fight cases—we stand by our clients.

Contact The Law Suits – Your Legal Partner in Mumbai

Phone: +91 89283 72392

Website: www.thelawsuits.in

Email: adv.bhimani@gmail.com

The Law Suits

Where Law Meets Justice.

The NCDRC has emphasized that medical professionals should use reasonable treatment methods, even when multiple medical approaches are available.

2024-09-10T03:40:00.000-07:00

Summary of the Case

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, ruled that while various medical treatments are permissible, medical professionals must ensure their methods are reasonable.

Case Overview

The complainant alleged that Fortis Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, along with its doctor, provided negligent care to her husband, a diabetic medical practitioner. After an angiography revealed artery blockages, the patient underwent angioplasty. Post-procedure, the patient experienced complications, including being placed on a ventilator, yet no serious condition was initially communicated. The patient later suffered a brain hemorrhage due to excessive Heparin use, which the hospital failed to diagnose in time. Despite concerns from the complainant’s family, appropriate measures were delayed. The patient was eventually transferred to another hospital, where he remained in a coma with severe impairments. The complainant argued that the hospital’s negligence resulted in substantial physical and financial damage, including high treatment costs and the patient’s loss of work capability. The complainant incurred around Rs. 50 lakhs in treatment expenses and claimed that the hospital’s mishandling and lack of response to a legal notice led to the formal complaint. Thus, the complainant filed a case with the National Commission.

Opposition’s Argument

Fortis Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre and the doctor responded jointly, stating that the hospital is well-regarded for its cardiac services and relies on Fortis Hospital Vasant Kunj for non-cardiac specialties such as neurosurgery. They argued that the patient, with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, was admitted for evaluation and treatment. Although the angioplasty was successful, the patient suffered severe complications, including pulmonary edema and brain hemorrhage. The hospital provided timely treatment, including the use of a ventilator, intra-aortic balloon pump, and emergency neurosurgery. The hospital and doctor denied negligence and asserted that all care adhered to standard protocols. They also refuted claims of excessive charges and inadequate care, maintaining that the treatment was comprehensive and the costs were justified.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arun Kumar Manglik v. Chirayu Health & Medicare (P) Ltd. (2019) emphasized that while various medical treatments are acceptable, they must be reasonable. Unreasonable practices, as determined by case circumstances, cannot be justified solely by professional opinions. In this case, the Commission found that the patient’s critical parameters were not monitored according to WHO and national guidelines, representing a failure to provide reasonable care. Additionally, in Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of a balanced compensation assessment, considering both inflated and minimal claims. Compensation should reflect the severity of the case and the ongoing impact of severe injury on the victim and their family. Following these principles, the Commission calculated compensation based on the patient’s loss of income, medical expenses, travel costs, and pain and suffering.

As a result, the National Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered the hospital and the doctor to jointly and severally pay Rs. 65 lakhs in compensation, plus interest at 6% per annum.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Insurers Are Prohibited from Unilaterally Altering Policy Terms at Renewal: NCDRC Finds New India Assurance Responsible for Service Deficiency.

2024-09-06T01:53:00.000-07:00

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, ruled that insurers cannot unilaterally alter policy coverage during renewal without the complainant’s consent.

Case Summary

Aaditya International, a partnership firm involved in fabric dyeing and printing, had two insurance policies with New India Assurance: one for stock and fixtures and another for plant, machinery, and goods. A fire caused by an electric short circuit destroyed their premises, including machinery, stock, and items held in trust. The complainant sought Rs. 75,61,748 for damages. Despite reluctantly accepting a salvage value of Rs. 65,000, the insurer paid only Rs. 16,59,635 for the plant and machinery, leaving Rs. 15,21,825 unpaid. Additionally, the insurer denied coverage for stock held in trust due to an oversight in the policy renewal, resulting in a loss of Rs. 41,12,113. After failing to resolve the issue directly, the complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission of Haryana, which ruled in favor of the insurer, finding no deficiency in service. The complainant then appealed to the National Commission.

Opposite Party’s Contentions

The insurer argued that the renewed policy did not cover stock held in trust, thus excluding related losses from the claim. They had paid Rs. 16,59,635 of the remaining claim amount and contended that there was no service deficiency, seeking dismissal of the complaint.

National Commission’s Observations

The National Commission focused on whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for the loss of stock held in trust. The complainant argued that the renewed policy should have retained coverage for stock held in trust, as it was covered under the previous policy. The insurer claimed the settlement was in line with the policy terms and that the court could not modify these terms. However, the Commission noted that insurers cannot unilaterally change policy terms at renewal without the complainant’s consent. This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in cases such as United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera and Jacob Punnen vs. United India Insurance Company Limited. Consequently, the National Commission allowed the appeal, overturned the State Commission’s dismissal, and ordered the insurer to pay Rs. 30,93,021 as assessed by the surveyor, with interest at 9% from the date the claim was approved.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Compensation Must Be Both Compensatory and Restorative: NCDRC

2024-09-06T00:56:00.000-07:00

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, ruled that compensation should both reimburse for losses and restore what was lost, with a 9% interest rate deemed reasonable.

Case Summary

The complainant entered into agreements with a developer and landowners to purchase a flat and a car parking space for ₹28,05,000. After paying ₹25,25,000, including ₹25,000 for an electric meter, the complainant found that the developer failed to deliver the property in a habitable condition within the agreed timeframe. Despite the complainant’s readiness to pay the remaining ₹3,05,000, the developer did not fulfill the contract. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission of West Bengal. The State Commission directed the developer to pay ₹3,00,000 in compensation and ₹10,000 in litigation costs. Dissatisfied, the complainant appealed to the National Commission.

Opposite Party’s Contentions

The developer did not appear at the proceedings, leading to an ex parte decision.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission noted that, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fortune Infrastructure Vs Trevor D’ Lima (2018), a buyer cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for possession and is entitled to a refund with compensation for unreasonable delays. In Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs Devasis Rudra (2019), the Court found a seven-year wait unreasonable and justified refund orders. In this case, with a delay exceeding nine years, the complainant sought remedies including defect correction, a refund, and compensation. The developer’s failure to provide possession despite receiving nearly 90% of the payment was deemed a clear deficiency in service. The complainant’s demands for compensation, adjustments, and legal costs were considered fair, given the significant delay and lack of response from the developer. The Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor (2022) affirmed that compensation should be both compensatory and restitutionary, with 9% interest being reasonable.

The National Commission upheld the appeal, directing the developer to deliver possession to the complainant within two months at no extra cost, provide compensation for the delay at a rate of 6% per annum, and pay ₹1 lakh in litigation costs.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Refunds Should Include Interest from the Date of Deposit to Ensure Full Restitution: NCDRC.

2024-09-06T00:54:00.000-07:00

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, chaired by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajendra, ruled that refunded amounts should be paid with interest from the date of deposit, ensuring that compensation is both restitutionary and compensatory.

Case Summary

The complainant booked a flat with the Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA) and paid ₹3,00,000 as earnest money. After being allotted a plot, he paid an additional 15% of the total amount. However, the developer failed to start development or deliver possession within the promised timeframe. Despite repeated requests, the developer did not meet its obligations, leading to harassment and mental distress for the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint with the District Commission, seeking ₹7,50,000 with 18% annual interest and ₹1,00,000 for mental anguish due to the service deficiency. The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, but the developer appealed to the State Commission of Punjab, which upheld the original decision. The developer then filed a revision petition with the National Commission.

Developer’s Contentions

The developer claimed that the plot was allotted on an “as is where is” basis through a draw, as specified in the brochure. They argued that disputes should be referred to the Chief Administrator of PUDA as per the Letter of Intent, thus excluding the Forum’s jurisdiction. The developer also accused the complainant of concealing facts and argued that the complaint was barred due to the complainant’s own actions. They contended that the case involved complex legal and factual issues unsuitable for summary resolution under the Act. Although they acknowledged the complainant’s payment of 15% of the sale price, they claimed that a contractor had been appointed for development work. The developer argued that the complaint was time-barred and sought its dismissal.

National Commission’s Observations

The National Commission focused on determining the appropriate compensation and interest for the refund due to the complainant. The Supreme Court, in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor, clarified that interest on refunded amounts should be calculated from the date of the original deposits to ensure full restitution. Interest granted only from the date of the last deposit does not achieve complete restitution. Following this precedent, the Commission allowed the revision petition and revised the earlier orders from the District Forum and State Commission. The developer was directed to refund ₹4,50,000 to the complainant, with simple interest at 9% per annum calculated from the respective dates of the deposits until payment. Additionally, the developer was ordered to pay ₹40,000 in litigation costs.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

The Ernakulam District Commission has ruled that an insurer’s dependence on a clause without providing evidence constitutes a deficiency in service.

2024-09-05T03:28:00.000-07:00

The Ernakulam District Commission, led by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran, and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Oriental Insurance responsible for a deficiency in service due to the improper denial of a legitimate claim..

Case Summary

The complainant, who was insured under a Happy Floater Mediclaim Policy with Oriental Insurance, had his claim partially settled. Although he incurred Rs. 95,410 for his wife’s eye surgeries, the insurer reimbursed only Rs. 61,200, as deemed reasonable by the Third-Party Administrator (TPA). Dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, who upheld the insurer’s decision. He then filed a complaint with the District Commission, arguing that the deduction of Rs. 34,210 was unjustified and sought reimbursement with 12% interest, plus Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and legal costs.

Insurer’s Arguments

The insurer contended that the insurance contract was governed by specific terms and conditions binding both parties, and their liability was limited to these terms. They disputed the complainant’s claim that hospital expenses were reasonable compared to other hospitals in Kerala, asserting that the deduction was neither illegal nor indicative of service deficiency. They emphasized that the policy covered only “reasonable and customary charges” and that they had already paid Rs. 61,200 after applying policy-based deductions. The insurer also noted that expenses for lenses were excluded from coverage. The Insurance Ombudsman had previously dismissed the complainant’s case, supporting the insurer’s stance. The insurer argued there was no deficiency in service or unfair practice and requested the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

District Commission’s Observations

The District Commission noted that the insurer’s main defense was that the deductions were in accordance with the policy’s “reasonable and customary charges” clause. However, the insurer failed to provide evidence supporting these deductions. The Commission observed that relying on this clause without evidence constituted a deficiency in service, contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Canara Bank vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which mandates interpreting policies in favor of the insured and resolving ambiguities in their favor. Given the complexity of insurance contracts and the challenges policyholders face in understanding all clauses, the complaint was deemed valid. The Commission found that the insurer’s refusal to fully reimburse the complainant, despite lacking justification for the deductions, amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The Commission directed the insurer to pay the complainant Rs. 34,210 as the outstanding claim amount. Additionally, the insurer was ordered to provide Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and hardship caused by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, along with Rs. 5,000 for legal costs.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Intermediaries Can Be Held Responsible for Customer Refunds: NCDRC Finds Goibibo Liable for Service Deficiency.

2024-09-05T03:21:00.000-07:00

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, chaired by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, ruled that intermediaries are more than mere facilitators; they earn commissions and thus bear responsibility for managing refunds for canceled bookings.

Case Summary

The complainants booked flight tickets through Goibibo for travel from New Delhi to Edmonton, totaling Rs. 1,29,860 and Rs. 53,280. After Jet Airways ceased operations, the complainants sought a refund from Goibibo but received no response despite several attempts, including sending a legal notice. Dissatisfied, they filed a complaint with the District Commission, which was upheld. Goibibo’s subsequent appeal to the State Commission of Punjab was dismissed, prompting them to file a revision petition with the National Commission.

Goibibo’s Arguments

Goibibo contended that the State Commission overlooked its role as merely a facilitator between consumers and service providers, lacking control over the service provider’s actions or omissions, such as those of Jet Airways. They argued that their role was limited to confirming bookings and issuing vouchers, and any refunds or compensations for cancellations were the airline’s responsibility, not Goibibo’s. Goibibo cited previous rulings under the IT Act, claiming that as an intermediary, it should not be held liable for third-party issues. They also referred to the User Agreement, which states that Goibibo is not liable for flight non-operation by airlines.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission focused on whether Goibibo, as an intermediary, could be held accountable for issuing refunds when an airline fails to deliver its services. The Commission, considering Goibibo’s refund policies and a Jet Airways circular, rejected Goibibo’s claim of non-liability. It highlighted that Goibibo is not merely a facilitator but earns commissions, thus carrying the responsibility to handle refunds for canceled bookings. The National Commission upheld the State Commission’s decision, finding no jurisdictional errors or irregularities in the lower courts’ findings, which were supported by evidence and aligned with Supreme Court principles. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

The NCDRC Rules That Delay Compensation Must Be Provided in Addition to Existing Compensation in Builder-Buyer Agreements.

2024-09-05T03:18:00.000-07:00

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), chaired by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, has found Raheja Developers responsible for failing to provide timely service. The ruling stipulates that delay compensation at 6% per annum should be granted in addition to any compensation already specified in the Builder-Buyer Agreement.

Case Summary

A complaint was lodged by 11 individuals who had booked units in the “Raheja Shilas” project in Gurgaon, based on various advertisements and promises made by Raheja Developers. After making significant payments, the complainants received allotment letters and signed Flat Buyer’s Agreements. According to the agreement, possession was to be delivered within 24 months, with an additional 6-month grace period. However, possession was not provided on time, prompting the complainants to approach the National Commission. They requested a 12% annual interest rate for delayed possession until handover, ₹5,00,000 for mental distress, and ₹1,00,000 for litigation expenses.

Developer’s Defense

Raheja Developers informed all allottees, including the complainants, that no compensation would be given for delays related to infrastructure or possession, as specified in the application form and agreement. Despite being aware of these terms, the complainants proceeded with their bookings. The developer attributed the delays to government policies, infrastructure issues, and legal constraints, asserting that the agreement’s terms were fair and binding. The construction was completed, but the Occupancy Certificates were delayed due to external factors. The developer argued that the issues were contractual and should be resolved in civil court, claiming no negligence under the Consumer Protection Act. They also contended that the complaint was time-barred and that the complainants, already property owners, did not qualify as consumers.

NCDRC Observations

The National Commission noted that the primary request from the complainants was for possession, with a refund as a secondary option. The developer assured that the Occupancy Certificate (OC) would be obtained within five months and possession would be handed over within six months. They agreed to provide delay compensation at a rate of 6% per annum, or refund the principal amount with 9% interest if they failed to do so. The complainants, referring to previous cases such as Charu Sharma Vs. Raheja Developers Ltd. and Santosh Narasimha Murthy & Ors. Vs. Mantri Castles Private Limited & Anr., argued for a higher delay compensation rate of 8% per annum or 6% plus the rate specified in the Builder-Buyer Agreement. The developer, citing Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors. Vs. Raheja Developers Limited, advocated for the 6% rate.

The NCDRC upheld the complaint and directed the developer to obtain a valid OC within four months and to deliver possession within six months. The ruling also required delay compensation at 6% per annum in addition to any compensation already provided in the agreement. The developer was further instructed to pay ₹25,000 for litigation costs.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Charging Above the MRP is Considered a Service Deficiency: Ernakulam District Commission.

2024-09-04T06:57:00.000-07:00

Case Summary

The Ernakulam District Commission, led by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran, and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., determined that overcharging a customer and refusing to provide a refund constitutes a deficiency in service.

Case Overview

A law student filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the Bata showroom in Ernakulam. The student purchased black shoes with an MRP of Rs 999 but was charged Rs 1066. Upon questioning this discrepancy, the store manager claimed that a sales tax could be added above the MRP for items sold after January 1, 2022. The manager also insulted the complainant and their friends, despite their legal background. The student pointed out that the shoes were old stock, with the MRP unchanged, and found the same shoes priced at Rs 549 on Amazon. Furthermore, the shoes were delivered without a proper box. When the student sought a refund due to poor fit, they were advised to wear thinner socks instead. This led to significant distress, negatively impacting their internship performance. The complainant sought Rs 1,00,000 in compensation for overcharging, selling outdated stock without a discount, refusal to refund, and mental distress.

Opposite Party’s Arguments

The opposite party contended that the complaint was not valid, claiming there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. They argued that the complaint was flawed due to the absence of the correct legal entity, M/s Bata India Limited, and referenced Supreme Court rulings to support this position. They attributed the price increase to a GST revision and insisted that they complied with all legal requirements. Additionally, they questioned the Commission’s territorial jurisdiction. Despite these arguments, the complainant’s claims were upheld as valid and unchallenged, leading to a ruling against the opposite party.

District Commission’s Findings

The District Commission noted that under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant was a consumer who had purchased goods from the opposite party. The complaint was filed within the allowable period and was deemed valid. The Commission found that the complainant provided sufficient evidence to prove both their consumer status and the transaction with the opposite party. It was observed that the complainant was charged Rs. 1066 for shoes marked with an MRP of Rs. 999, which violated the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The opposite party’s defense regarding a government tax revision was flawed since Rule 18(3) prohibits charging more than the MRP, even with tax changes. This constituted an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Referencing the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s judgment in Nagneshwar Sharma vs. Titan Industries Limited & Ors., the Commission emphasized that charging more than the MRP is a deficiency in service. The opposite party’s overcharging, refusal to refund, and dismissive behavior led to mental distress and a breach of trust. The Commission found these actions to be clear deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices.

Decision

The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the opposite party to refund the Rs. 67 collected in excess of the MRP. Additionally, the opposite party was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and breach of trust due to the deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices, as well as ₹5,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Failure to Transfer Shares Constitutes a Deficiency in Service: NCDRC.

2024-09-04T06:53:00.000-07:00

Case Summary

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, chaired by Justice A.P. Sahi and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, ruled that although trading in shares is typically a commercial activity, a company’s failure to transfer shares as required constitutes a deficiency in service.

Case Overview

The complainants had purchased approximately 250 shares of Glaxo SmithKline Pharmaceutical Company and submitted them along with a transfer deed to have the shares transferred into their names. Despite completing the transfer, the company did not return the share certificates to the complainants. This led to a complaint filed with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Jaipur. The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainants, and the State Commission of Rajasthan upheld this decision on appeal. Subsequently, the company filed a revision petition with the National Commission.

Opposite Party’s Arguments

The company contended that it had informed the complainants that the share certificates had not been received. The key issue was whether the share certificates had been transferred, which would determine if there was a deficiency in service. The company also questioned the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, suggesting that the matter fell under the Companies Act. However, the company did not respond to the District Commission’s proceedings, leaving the complainants’ claims uncontested.

National Commission’s Observations

The National Commission examined whether the complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, considering the definitions of “consumer” and “service.” Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank, the Commission clarified that while “consumer” excludes those purchasing goods for resale or commercial use, it includes those seeking services for personal use or self-employment. The central issue was whether the company’s failure to transfer share certificates constituted a deficiency in service under the Act. The company’s argument that such disputes should be addressed under the Companies Act and questioning the consumer forum’s jurisdiction were rejected. Both the District and State Commissions found that the company’s inadequate steps to transfer the shares amounted to a deficiency in service. Although trading in shares is generally commercial, the complaint focused on the company’s failure to fulfill its duty of transferring shares. The company’s denial of receiving the share certificates was deemed insufficient to counter the allegations in the limited scope of the Consumer Protection Act’s revisional jurisdiction. The Commission upheld the findings of the lower forums but noted that the company had complied with the order to compensate the complainant, except for pending amounts related to mental harassment and litigation costs. The Commission did not find it necessary to delve further into the complaint’s maintainability but allowed the company to pursue legal remedies under applicable laws.

Decision

The National Commission decided that the ₹10,000 awarded for mental agony was unwarranted, given that the dispute had largely been resolved through prior payments. Consequently, the ₹10,000 compensation for mental agony was overturned. The revision was partially allowed, with the company directed to pay ₹2,000 in litigation costs to the complainants within one month.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Complaint Valid Even if Third Parties Are Involved, Provided the Main Issue Relates to the Service Provider: Ernakulam District Commission.

2024-09-04T06:51:00.000-07:00

Case Overview

The complainant filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against a tour operator who organized a tour to Egypt and Jordan for 25 people, including the complainant. During the tour, seven participants, including the complainant, tested positive for COVID-19 in Jordan, resulting in the cancellation of the remaining tour and mandatory quarantine under local health authorities. The tour operator charged the complainant an extra Rs. 24,500 for new flight tickets, hotel stays, and transportation. When the complainant attempted to claim compensation from the insurance company for these additional expenses and the mental distress experienced, the claim was rejected. The rejection occurred because the insurance policy provided by the tour operator mistakenly covered a different period than the actual tour dates. The complainant attributed this error to the tour operator’s negligence and sought compensation: Rs. 25,000 for trip cancellation, Rs. 24,500 for additional expenses, and Rs. 25,500 for mental agony and stress caused by the quarantine.

Opposite Party’s Arguments

The tour operator contended that the complaint was unfounded, arguing that the core issue was the denial of the insurance claim by ICICI Lombard, which should have been included in the complaint. They claimed that all necessary services were provided and that the insurance policy details were given to the complainant before the tour, contrary to the complainant’s assertion that it was provided only at the airport. The tour operator also covered additional costs incurred due to the complainant’s COVID-19 diagnosis during the trip and attributed the insurance claim denial to the insurance company’s error. They requested dismissal of the complaint with costs.

District Commission’s Observations

The District Commission found the complaint valid even without the inclusion of the insurance company, as the primary issue was the tour operator’s failure to secure appropriate insurance coverage. The Commission identified the tour operator as negligent for not ensuring proper insurance, which led to financial loss and mental distress for the complainant and others affected by COVID-19 during the trip. Citing relevant case laws such as Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta and Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, the Commission emphasized the operator’s responsibility to meet contractual obligations and protect consumer rights. The tour operator was held accountable for the complainant’s financial losses and emotional distress.

Decision

The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the tour operator to pay Rs. 25,000 for trip cancellation, refund Rs. 24,500 for additional transportation expenses, and provide Rs. 15,000 as compensation for mental agony and stress due to the deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices. Additionally, the tour operator was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Failure to Deliver Possession After Receiving Deposits Is Considered a ‘Deficiency in Service,’ Says NCDRC.

2024-09-03T00:40:00.000-07:00

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, chaired by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, found Vatika Limited responsible for a deficiency in service due to delays in transferring possession after receiving the deposit amount.

Case Summary

The complainant had booked a residential unit in the “Urban Woods” project by Vatika Limited, paying a booking fee and signing an agreement with the expectation of receiving possession within three years. The agreement included a modular kitchen and car parking space, with a housing loan managed by HDFC Limited. However, Vatika Limited failed to complete construction on time and did not fulfill the agreed terms, including issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. The complainant later faced additional demands and observed that promised project features, like the car parking space and entry from the Ajmer Express Highway, were not developed. Dissatisfied, the complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission of Rajasthan, which ruled in their favor. The State Commission ordered Vatika Limited to refund the booking amount of ₹5,71,245 with 9% interest, pay the housing loan of ₹30,46,643 to HDFC Limited within one month, and awarded ₹5,100 in costs but no compensation for mental anguish. Both parties appealed the decision to the National Commission.

Builder’s Contentions

The builder argued that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period and that the complaint’s valuation was inflated to secure a refund. They claimed the dispute should be resolved through arbitration and asserted that the complainant had defaulted on payments and showed no interest in possession, despite being informed. The builder maintained that the project and flats were completed and requested dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission referenced prior rulings, including the Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs. Devasis Rudra case, which deemed indefinite delays in possession as unreasonable, and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghavan, which affirmed buyers’ right to refunds for significant delays. The Supreme Court has supported the view that buyers should not be expected to wait indefinitely and are entitled to refunds for substantial delays. In terms of interest rates, the Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor found 9% interest to be fair compensation. Additionally, the Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda emphasized that multiple compensations for a single deficiency are unjustifiable. Although the builder argued that a Certificate of Occupation was not required under local regulations, it was deemed necessary for a clear title.

The National Commission upheld the appeal and directed the builder to refund the booking amount of ₹5,71,245 to the complainant with 9% annual interest from the deposit date until payment. The builder was also instructed to settle the housing loan of ₹30,46,643 with HDFC Limited within one month and to pay ₹50,000 in litigation costs to the complainant.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Builder Legally Required to Provide Completed Unit with Conveyance Deed, Rules NCDRC.

2024-09-03T00:38:00.000-07:00

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, ruled that builders must deliver a completed unit along with the conveyance deed, and failure to do so amounts to a deficiency in service.

Case Summary

The complainant booked a flat with Marvel Developers for their “Marvel Piazza” project in Pune, which promised completion and possession by a specified date. After making significant payments, the complainant encountered delays and issues, including the project’s location being partly within an Air Force restricted area, affecting promised amenities. Despite multiple follow-ups, the developer failed to deliver possession or refund the payments. The complainant pursued legal action, including filing complaints with the police and the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), but these issues were not resolved, leading to a consumer complaint.

Developer’s Arguments

The developer admitted to the booking, agreements, and payments but contended that the project, “Marvel Piazza,” comprises 11 buildings and did not include amenities affected by the Air Force restricted zone. The complainant had taken possession of the flats for interior work and received a rebate but later made unauthorized constructions, causing objections from municipal authorities and delays in obtaining the occupancy certificate. The developer claimed the complainant was responsible for delayed payments and alleged false criminal charges. They argued that the complaint was barred by limitation, filed for commercial gain, and not maintainable due to pending RERA complaints. The developer requested dismissal of the complaint.

National Commission’s Observations

The National Commission noted that, according to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited vs. Abhishek Khanna (2021), the developer’s argument that the complaint should be dismissed due to estoppel by election was baseless, as it was filed after complaints with MRERA. The complainants had withdrawn their MRERA complaints and settled, but the developer had consented to this Commission’s jurisdiction for the remaining issues. The claim that the complaint was time-barred was also rejected, as possession was offered within two years of obtaining the occupancy certificate. The Supreme Court rulings in Lata Construction vs. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah (2000), Meerut Development Authority vs. Mukesh K. Gupla IV (2012), and Samruddi Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2022) affirmed that a builder must deliver a completed unit and execute the conveyance deed, and failing to do so constitutes a continuing wrong. The Commission found no evidence of the developer receiving compensation or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for land transferred for public use, dismissing individual compensation claims. The claim for ₹25 lakhs in compensation for unprovided amenities was rejected as the sanctioned plan did not include these amenities, and photographs showed that promised amenities were provided. Delays in possession were attributed to factors such as demonetization, unauthorized construction by the cmplainants, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which justified an extension of time. However, compensation for the delay from January 2018 to December 2019 was deemed appropriate, calculated at 6% interest per annum, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in DLF Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Capital Green Flat Buyer’s Association (2021).

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Bank Responsible for Securing Pledged Customer Assets: Ernakulam District Commission Finds Union Bank at Fault for Service Deficiency.

2024-09-03T00:36:00.000-07:00

The Ernakulam District Commission, chaired by Shri D.B. Binu, Shri V. Ramachandran, and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., ruled that the bank is responsible for safeguarding the assets pledged by its customers and cannot shirk this duty.

Case Summary

The complainants filed a complaint against Union Bank of India, alleging poor service and unfair trade practices after the bank failed to return their pledged gold ornaments, despite the complainants’ readiness to repay the gold loans. Initially, the bank informed them that a staff member had stolen the gold, and assured them that either the gold or its market value would be returned upon repayment of the principal and interest. However, when the complainants sought to close their loan accounts, the bank demanded additional interest beyond the agreed period and offered a lower compensation of ₹2,900 per gram of gold instead of returning the original ornaments. The complainants, having fully repaid the bank, sought either the return of their gold or its equivalent value, along with ₹25,000 each for the mental distress caused by the bank’s actions.

Bank’s Defense

The bank contended that the complainants were attempting to close their loan accounts unilaterally by paying interest up to a self-imposed cutoff date. Each complainant had taken out gold loans under separate agreements requiring repayment of the principal amount with interest until full settlement. The bank offered two options: repay the entire loan and retrieve the gold from the court or settle for the market value of the gold. The complainants did not select either option and failed to settle their accounts, leading to increased arrears. The bank denied agreeing to limit interest calculation to the complainants’ proposed date.

District Commission’s Observations

The District Commission found that the bank failed to uphold its responsibility to protect the pledged gold ornaments, resulting in their theft. It was evident that the complainants had repeatedly expressed their willingness to repay the loan with interest, believing it would be calculated only up to November 2018 based on assurances from the bank manager. The bank’s subsequent refusal to honor this agreement and its demand for additional interest constituted a deficiency in service. The Commission held the bank accountable for the loss and ordered it to either return gold ornaments of equivalent weight or pay the complainants the current market value of the gold.

The Commission directed the bank to calculate interest on the loan amounts only up to November 1, 2019, provided the complainants settled the principal and interest within 45 days of receiving the order.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Termination of Contractual Appointment with Stigma Requires Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice: Supreme Court .

2024-09-02T00:56:00.000-07:00

In a recent judgment on August 28, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that when the termination of a contractual appointment carries a stigma, the principles of natural justice must be observed.

The Court further clarified that an appointment made on a contract basis, even if following a request for compassionate appointment, does not automatically qualify as an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.

“The mere fact that the respondent was appointed on a contractual basis pursuant to the application for compassionate appointment would not make his appointment one under the Dying in Harness Rules,” held the Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal.

In this case, Brijesh Kumar, through his mother, initially applied for a compassionate appointment with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). However, the department did not respond.

Later, another application was submitted under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. In response, Kumar was notified that the corporation had decided to appoint him as a contract conductor on a preferential basis. During his tenure, he was found guilty on two separate occasions of carrying three passengers without tickets and, on another occasion, transporting 500 kg of extra luggage.

As a result of the misconduct, Brijesh Kumar’s services were terminated on January 30, 2016. In response, he filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the termination. He argued that his appointment was based on compassionate grounds, making his employment permanent, and therefore, his services could not be terminated without a disciplinary inquiry. The High Court ruled in his favor, leading the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) to challenge this decision before the Supreme Court.

The Division Bench observed that instead of being appointed on compassionate grounds, the respondent was offered a position under a policy that provided preferential treatment for appointing dependents of deceased employees on a contractual basis. This offer was not only accepted by the respondent but also formalized with his signature.

“Despite repeated inquiries, no evidence was presented by the respondent to prove that he was, in fact, appointed on compassionate grounds. The respondent knowingly accepted the offer of contractual employment and signed the agreement, which is undisputed. Therefore, his appointment was purely contractual and cannot be considered permanent,” the Court stated.

In light of these considerations, the Court set aside the impugned order, noting that the High Court had erred in its conclusions and had misinterpreted the material evidence on record.

However, the Court emphasized that the respondent’s services were terminated without providing him any opportunity to respond, and no show-cause notice was issued. This led the Court to stress the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice, even in cases of contractual appointments.

“The termination order, being stigmatic in nature, could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The respondent was not supplied with the termination order, and no show-cause notice appears to have been issued. Therefore, the termination of his services, even if contractual, due to alleged misconduct, was carried out without adhering to the principles of natural justice,” the Court observed.

Given these facts and circumstances, the Court found the termination order to be unsustainable and accordingly set it aside. At the same time, the Court clarified that the respondent’s appointment was indeed contractual in nature.

“The judgments and orders of the High Court dated 12.01.2018 and 12.09.2018 are set aside to the extent they hold the appointment to be on compassionate grounds under the Dying in Harness Rules and of a permanent nature. However, the quashing of the termination order is upheld,” the Court ruled.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Consumer Cases: Burden of Proof Falls on the Complainant, Says Ernakulam District Commission.

2024-09-02T00:53:00.000-07:00

The Ernakulam District Commission, led by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran, and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., ruled that in consumer cases, the burden of proof rests with the claimant. The manufacturer cannot be held liable without sufficient evidence of service deficiencies or manufacturing defects.

Case Summary:

The complainant had submitted their LG Stylus-3 mobile phone to the manufacturer’s service center for repairs. However, the service center shut down without informing the complainant about the repair status. Upon visiting the now-closed showroom and indicating a potential legal action, the manufacturer returned the phone in a damaged state with a ruined display. The complainant then approached the Commission, seeking ₹10,000 for repair costs and ₹15,000 for mental anguish and other inconveniences.

Opposing Party’s Arguments:

The opposing party did not submit a written response, leading to the proceedings being conducted ex parte.

District Commission’s Observations:

The Commission noted the complainant’s claim that their mobile phone was returned in worse condition after being entrusted for repairs, with a damaged display. Despite seeking compensation for both the physical damage and mental distress, the complainant provided only one document to support their allegations. This evidence was deemed insufficient to substantiate the claim against the manufacturer. Citing the precedent set in SGS India Ltd. vs. Dolphin International Ltd., the Commission emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the complainant. Without adequate evidence of a service deficiency or manufacturing defect, the manufacturer could not be held responsible. As the complainant failed to provide sufficient proof, the Commission concluded that the complaint could not be upheld and subsequently dismissed the case.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ ADN DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Neglecting to Contact Customer for Issue Resolution Constitutes Deficiency in Service: Ernakulam District Commission.

2024-09-02T00:51:00.000-07:00

The Ernakulam District Commission, led by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran, and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Federal Bank accountable for a deficiency in service. The Commission ruled that the bank’s failure to directly refund the excess amount to the complainant, despite having their contact details, constituted a service deficiency.

Case Summary:

The complainant visited Federal Bank’s Perumbavoor Branch to deposit ₹20,000 into an account at the bank’s Koratty Branch. The complainant provided ten bundles of cash, each containing 100 notes of ₹20, to the Cash Officer. Due to a long queue, the Cash Officer initially refused the cash deposit, asking for approval from the Branch Manager. The Manager suggested using NEFT/RTGS instead, but the complainant insisted on depositing the cash, which was eventually accepted after paying a ₹100 counting fee. The complainant argued that, according to the bank’s rules, only ₹50 should have been charged for counting notes of denominations below ₹50. They claimed this wrongful charge caused mental distress and financial loss, leading them to issue a legal notice. The complainant then approached the District Commission, alleging service deficiency and seeking a refund of ₹50, ₹5,00,000 for mental anguish, ₹5,00,000 for the illegal charge, and ₹25,000 for legal costs.

Bank’s Contentions:

The bank argued that the complaint was unfounded and intended to extract money through a fabricated claim of misconduct and mental distress. The bank admitted that the complainant deposited ₹20,000 but denied claims of delays or misdirection by the Cash Officer. They acknowledged mistakenly charging ₹100 instead of the correct ₹59 (₹50 plus ₹9 GST) but refunded the excess ₹41 to the beneficiary’s account after receiving the legal notice, as the complainant did not hold an account with the bank. The bank maintained there was no deficiency in service since the excess amount had been refunded, and argued that no additional relief was warranted.

District Commission’s Observations:

The Commission reviewed the evidence and noted that the bank’s circular specified a ₹50 fee for counting the ten bundles of ₹20 notes. The bank’s error in charging ₹100 was recognized. Although the bank eventually credited the excess ₹41 to the beneficiary’s account, this action occurred only after the complainant sent a legal notice. The Commission found the bank’s rationale for not refunding the excess amount directly to the complainant, due to their lack of an account, unreasonable. The failure to contact the complainant directly to resolve the issue was deemed a deficiency in service.

The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering the bank to refund the excess ₹50, pay ₹3,000 for mental agony, and cover ₹5,000 in legal costs.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa

CLICK HERE TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE ORDER

Center Releases Draft Regulations for Temporary Suspension of Telecommunication Services.

2024-08-31T03:53:00.000-07:00

On August 28, the Central Government released the draft Temporary Suspension of Telecommunication Services Rules, 2024, which fall under the Telecommunication Act, 2023.

These new rules will replace the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Amendment) Rules, 2020, previously established under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

Objections or suggestions regarding the draft rules may be submitted to the Joint Secretary (Telecom), Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110001.

According to the draft rules, directions to suspend telecommunication services under Section 20(b) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023, must be issued in writing by the competent authority—either the Union Home Secretary for the Central Government or the Secretary to the State Government in charge of the Home Department for State Governments.

In cases where issuing a suspension order by the competent authority is not feasible due to ‘unavoidable circumstances,’ the order may be issued by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Central Government. However, such an order must be confirmed by the competent authority within 24 hours of issuance; otherwise, it will automatically expire.

Details of the Suspension Order

Each suspension order must clearly specify the reasons for its issuance and be limited to: (1) addressing the specific reasons for the suspension; (2) defining the geographical area(s) affected; and (3) setting a duration not exceeding 15 calendar days.

Review Committee

A copy of the suspension order must be sent to the relevant review committee within 24 hours of its issuance. The review committee will consist of:

Cabinet Secretary – Chairman;
Secretary to the Central Government In-charge, Legal Affairs;
Secretary to the Central Government, Department of Telecommunications.

The review committee will convene within 5 calendar days of the suspension order’s issuance to assess whether the order complies with Section 20(2)(b) of the 2023 Act. If the committee finds that the suspension order does not comply with Section 20(2)(b), it has the authority to overturn the order.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa