{"id":890,"date":"2023-09-28T15:38:26","date_gmt":"2023-09-28T10:08:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=890"},"modified":"2023-09-28T15:38:26","modified_gmt":"2023-09-28T10:08:26","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-a-non-reasoned-order-cannot-be-treated-as-binding-precedent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-a-non-reasoned-order-cannot-be-treated-as-binding-precedent\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that a non-reasoned order cannot be treated as binding precedent"},"content":{"rendered":"

EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED <\/strong>(APPELLANT)\u00a0 Vs. <\/strong>HIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS <\/strong>(RESPONDENTS)<\/h2>\n

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1434 OF 2023
\n<\/strong>(3JB, SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI, UJJAL BHUYAN JJ., delivered by SANJIV KHANNA, J.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The instant appeal filed by M\/s. Experion Developers Private Limited under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is directed against the order and judgment dated 16.01.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the Consumer Case No. 34\/2022, whereby the appellant has been directed to refund to Himanshu Dewan & Sonali Dewan & Others, the amount collected towards excess sale area, and to execute supplementary correction deeds within six weeks from the date of the order. The appellant in the instant case had developed and constructed the apartments in a housing project, namely \u201cWindchants\u201d, situated in Gurgaon, Haryana. The respondents are the allottees or the subsequent purchasers\/buyers of their apartments. The contractual terms inter-se are governed by the \u201cApartment Buyer Agreement\u201d<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the order passed by thr NCDRC in consumer case valid and sustainable?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong> Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Amit Sibal<\/p>\n

The appellant, relying upon Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides that once limitation starts running no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application would stop it, have argued that the \u2018cause of action\u2019 arose and commenced on 27.04.2017, which is when the appellant had intimated the increase in the sale area and, consequently, the enhancement of price. Accordingly, in terms of Section 69 of the Act, which prescribes the limitation of two years from the date on which the \u2018cause of action\u2019 has arisen, the limitation had come to an end on 26.04.2019. Therefore, the respondents would not be entitled to the benefit of exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. It is highlighted that the conveyance deeds were executed by the appellant on the respondents\/allottees upon making full payment, including the payments with regard to the increased area, and such payment, it is submitted, was voluntary and reservation. It is also argued by the appellant that it is not even the case of the respondents that they\/original allottees had made payments under some threat, coercion or duress. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say, rather, they were estopped from saying four years after the execution of the conveyance deeds in their favour that there was no actual increase in the sale area and the demand raised by the appellant in that regard was not justified or was illegal.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:<\/u><\/strong> Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharyya<\/p>\n

As per the respondents, the \u2018cause of action\u2019 arose when the payments towards the increase in the sale area were made, and thereupon, the conveyance deeds were executed between April 2018 to September 2019. They also submit, on account of the Covid pandemic, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has to be excluded in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020. Since the complaints were made on 25.02.2022, and on exclusion of the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the complaints would be well within the limitation of two years from the date on which the \u2018cause of action\u2019 had arisen as prescribed in Section 69 of the Act.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the National Commission. It was held that, \u201cA non-reasoned order passed by this Court dismissing the case cannot be read as accepting and considering the additional evidence, or as rejecting justification and reasons given therein for claiming additional\/increased sale area.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The court further clarified that, \u201cthe observations made in this order, insofar as limitation is concerned, would be binding and has attained finality. Observations made in this order on the question of acquiescence\/estoppel and merits\/justification of the increase in the sale area would be aspects which would have to be considered by the National Commission afresh in terms of the observations contained in the present judgment.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The court observed that, \u201cThere is a clear distinction between the binding law of precedents in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of merger and res judicata. To merge, means to sink or disappear in something else, to become absorbed or extinguished. Once the superior court disposes the dispute before it in any manner, either by affirming the decree or order, by setting aside or modifying the same, it is the decree of the superior court, tribunal or authority, which is the final binding and operative decree. The decree and order of the inferior court, tribunal or authority gets merged into the order passed by the superior forum. However, this doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application.\u2026\u2026A precedent operates to bind in similar situations in a distinct case, whereas res judicata operates to bind parties to proceedings for no other reason, but that there should be end to litigation. Principle of res judicata should apply where the lis was inter-parties and has attained finality on the issues involved. The principle of res judicata will have no application in cases where the judgment or order has been passed by the Court having no jurisdiction thereof or involving a pure question of law. Law of binding precedents, in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, has a larger connotation as it settles the principles of law which emanates from the judgment, which are then treated as binding precedents.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED (APPELLANT)\u00a0 Vs. HIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1434 OF 2023 (3JB, SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI, UJJAL BHUYAN JJ., delivered by SANJIV KHANNA, J.) Facts: The instant appeal filed by M\/s. Experion Developers Private Limited under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":892,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/890","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=890"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/890\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":894,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/890\/revisions\/894"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/892"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}