Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur, which allowed a revision petition and directed the District Consumer Commission to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously. The respondent Anant Mayee, a joint owner of an ancestral plot, along with his brothers, entered into a development agreement with the petitioner Bhalchandra Mahashabde. The agreement, dated 29 April 2016, was for the development of a flat scheme under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act. A deed of declaration was executed on 31 January 2017. The total cost of the plot was fixed at Rs. 44,39,000. The respondent and his brother Vinayak opted to retain flats in lieu of the land cost, while other legal heirs received proportionate cash payments. The consumer complaint was filed before the District Consumer Commission. During its pendency, the revision petition was filed before the State Commission, which allowed it and directed the District Commission to decide the complaint expeditiously. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court issued rule and heard both parties. The judgment text provided does not include the final decision or reasoning.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Revision Petition - Maintainability - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed Revision Petition No. RBT/RP/19/18 and directed the District Consumer Commission to decide Complaint Case No. CC/19/4 expeditiously. The petitioner, the developer, filed a writ petition challenging this order. The court issued rule and heard both sides, but the final determination is not included in the provided text. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO.63832022N
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (04) 189
WRIT PETITION NO.6383/2022
Mrs. Swati Paunikar, Shri S.N. Bhattad
Bhalchandra s/o Govind Mahashabde
Anant s/o Gangadhar Mayee
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that allowed a revision petition and directed the District Consumer Commission to decide a consumer complaint expeditiously.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the State Commission's order dated 21 July 2022.
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by the State Commission's order allowing the revision petition and directing expeditious disposal of the consumer complaint.
Previous Decisions
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur, allowed Revision Petition No. RBT/RP/19/18 in Complaint Case No. CC/19/4 and directed the District Consumer Commission to decide the complaint expeditiously.
Judgment Excerpts
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 21th July 2022 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Circuit Bench, Nagpur in Revision Petition No. RBT/RP/19/18 in Complaint Case No.CC/19/4 and thereby allowed the Revision Petition and directed DCC to decide the complaint expeditiously.
Development Agreement was executed on 29.4.2016 by all the land owners in favour of petitioners.
Deed of Declaration executed on 31.1.2017.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission. During its pendency, a revision petition was filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which allowed the revision and directed the District Commission to decide the complaint expeditiously. The petitioner, aggrieved by this order, filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court issued rule and heard both parties.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act:
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019:
