Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAVINDER SINGH CHANA versus KHANNA PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.

Decided
24 August 2022
Judges listed
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.K. MAHESHWARI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 136 · 2022 INSC 1319

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 136, margin F

2

By an order dated 15.10.2020, M.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal, (M.P.) (for short ’the State Commission’) directed the respondent herein to refund a total sum of Rs.21,18,000/- (Rupees twenty-one lakhs eighteen thousand only) to the appellant with interest thereon within a period of two months. The operative portion of the order of the State Commission is as under: “It is proved in the light of above investigation/observation and justice citations that even after receipt of an amount of Rs.21.18 Lakhs, within a fixed time period, which is generally presumed approximately two years, the construction of the flat has not been completed. Hence the complainant is entitled to receive the deposit amount back along with interest. Therefore this complaint case is allowed/accepted and respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.21.18 Lakh (Rs. Twenty One Lakh Eighteen Thousand only) within a period of two months and also to pay simple interest of 9% per annum upon the above said amount from the dated 19.01.2015 the last depositing installment till realization date. The respondent also to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

pp. 136–137, margin G

3

However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the National Commission’) has passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 directing the refund of Rs.16,18,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs eighteen thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of two months from the date of the said order.

p. 137, margin C

4

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the National Commission was in error in partially reversing the order of the State Commission. Therefore, the order of the National Commission impugned herein is hereby set aside and the order of the State Commission dated 15.10.2020 is hereby restored.

p. 137, margin D

5

The respondent is directed to pay/refund the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission dated 15.10.2020 within a period of two months from today, if already not paid/refunded.

p. 137, margin E

6

The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly.

p. 137, margin F