BEFORE THE
HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA UNIT-III
Tramline
Building ( 1st Floor )
18, Judges
Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027
Consumer Case no. 24
of 2015
In
the matter of :
Mr. Ashis Sen,
Proprietor of M/s. Ashis Sen, Son of Late Mohitosh Sen, residing at 2/87, Sree
Colony, Police Station – Netaji Nagar, Kolkata - 700002,
_______Complainant
-
Versus
–
Sushil
Kumar Das, Son of Late Nukul Chandra Das, residing at 3/95, Sanghati Colony,
Police Station – Patuli, Kolkata - 700047,
________Respondent
BRIEF
NOTES OF ARGUMENT
ON
BEHALF OF
THE
RESPONDENT
SUSHIL
KUMAR DAS
List of
Dates :
|
1 |
06/10/2012 |
Agreement for Sale |
|
2 |
30/04/2013 |
Flat delivered |
|
3 |
09/11/2015 |
Consumer Case filed |
|
4 |
21/12/2015 |
Written version of O.P. |
|
5 |
15/02/2016 |
Evidence on Affidavit by the Complainant |
|
6 |
28/09/2016 |
Questionnaire by O.P. |
|
7 |
08/11/2016 |
Reply by Complainant |
|
8 |
22/11/2016 |
Evidence on Affidavit by O.P. |
|
9 |
06/12/2016 |
Question by the Complainant |
|
10 |
30/01/2017 |
Reply by O.P. |
|
11 |
22/05/2017 |
Inspection Report for Complainant |
|
12 |
13/12/2022 |
Inspection Report for O.P. |
Story of
the Complainant;
1. The
complainant had entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 06-10-2012, for
purchasing a Flat on 2nd Floor (South East Facing) measuring more or
less 873 Sq. ft. including 20% Super Built Up area situated at Municipal
Premises No. 54/106, Raipur Road, locally known as Postal address at 3/95,
Sanghati Colony, Police Station – Patuli now Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 700047, at
a total Consideration of Rs. 16,50,000/- ( Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Fifty
Thousand) only.
2. The
Complainant has already been paid in different dates of Rs. 12,00,000/- (
Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only. Your complainant also expressed for purchasing
proper fitting of best quality of sanitary, plumbing and electrical materials
amounting to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand) only, and the same was
duly handed over to the owner/developer, on condition that balance amount of
Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) would be received from the
complainant at the time of registration which was fixed on April’ 2013.
3. The
Owner/ Developer handed over the possession of the said flat to the complainant
on 30-04-2013.
4. The Owner
/Developer did not provide the following under mentioned services which are as
follows :-
a) All the
tiles fitting throughout the defective portion of the flat;
b) All
aluminum windows fitting are defective;
c) All
windows grills of your petitioner’s flat are not painted till today;
d) There are
no caretaker/ Darwan/ Security Guard’s Room;
e) There are
no common toilet for maid servants and outsiders, darwan or for security guard;
f) The roof
is partly encroached by the O.P. without the consent of the purchaser but as
per agreement for sale the ultimate roof of the building is common;
g) There are
insufficient water tank for 8 flats of the said apartment;
h) The
building outside painting is still pending;
i) The
outside plaster partly incomplete and your petitioner’s portion which is
damaging day by day;
j) The roof
is not water protected so soaking water continuously damaging your petitioner’s
portion and as such roof treatment is required;
k) There are
no ground earthing provided nor I.E. Rules 1958;
l) That no
NOC of the said building is admitted to your petitioner till today from the
financial institute on repeated demand;
m) All
rubbish materials are stacked at the common passage of ground floor as a result
of which ingress and egress is being hampered;
n) Staircase
railing handles are unfinished and are not painted;
o) No
additional pumps and motors have been arranged for emergency;
p) Due to
incomplete plaster of the outside works of the flat one portion of the bed room
wall damaged;
q) Main stop
lock for inlet water of the flat not provided;
r) Building
completion certificate, structure fitness certificate along with the building
plan not maintained till date.
s) Staircase
flooring is improper and finishing work is undone and due to poor work. The
staircase floorings damaged is several places.
t) The iron
made gates is between 2nd floor and 3rd floor’s common
passage and also on the 3rd floors stair-case kept under lock and
key as a result of which free ingress and egress of the inhabitants have been
hampered;
5. The
owner/ developer has illegally encroached a portion of the ultimate roof and
unauthorized and/ or illegally made a personal room beside the entrance of the
roof on the common area.
6. Your
petitioner has several times requested by serving notices to the owner/
developer for registration of the said flat in favour of the petitioner but
in-spite of the receiving those notices the owner/ developer intentionally
neglected to do so or not to fix up the date for registration.
7. The
Complainant has informed the entire facts to the Owner/ Developer for taking
appropriate measure vide Advocate’s letter dated 14-06-2014, 21-05-2014,
24-07-2014, and lastly on 14-01-2015, but the owner/ developer did not pay any
heed to the appeal of the complainant, hence this complaint case.
8. The
Complainant prays for the following relief/s;
i)
An order directing the owner, developer to execute the deed of
conveyance in respect of a flat, after taking the balance consideration amount
of Rs. 3,50,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only, and
completing the same in all respect, along with a Completion Certificate from
the Kolkata Municipal Corporation;
ii)
An order directing the owner/ developer for making registration of
the said flat at an earliest infavour of the complainant;
iii)
An order directing the owner/ developer to adjust the amount of
Rs. 75,000/- for proper fitting of best quality of sanitary, plumbing and
electrical materials which the complainant himself purchased and handed over to
the owner/ developer to be installed in the flat out of balance consideration
amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only;
iv)
To direct the owner/ developer for completion of works as
mentioned in para clause (1) to (t) in the flat of the complainant;
v)
To direct the owner/ developer to pay a sum of of Rs. 3,50,000/-
as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant;
vi)
To direct the owner/ developer to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant
as litigation cost;
9. The
Documents relied on by the Complainant;
1. Agreement
dated 06-10-2012;
2. Advocate’s
Letter dated 14-06-2013, 21-05-2014, 24-07-2014, and 14-01-2015;
Reply of
the Respondent;
I.
The Respondent is a refugee from East Pakistan and was allotted a
plot by the Government of West Bengal.
II.
On the said land this respondent intends to a construction of a
building of his own and thereby constructed a Ground plus three storeyed
building. Be it noted that on that area the building sanction was not necessary
and the building was completed accordingly.
III.
Due to paucity of fund this respondent intends to sale a flat and
the complainant approached the respondent to buy a flat in the 2nd
floor of the building.
IV.
The complainant being an Advocate by Profession, the respondent
entrusted the complainant to draft the agreement and the complainant with
ulterior motive wrote the measurement as 873 sq. ft. instead of 950 sq. ft. and
consideration was Rs. 16,50,000/-. Be it noted that the complainant shall pay
Rs. 1,800/- per Square feet.
V.
The respondent handed over possession of the complete flat on
April’ 2013, and the complainant took possession of the flat after verifying
each and every items.
VI.
As the construction of the building being completed before the
agreement was executed the complainant made some addition and alteration in the
said flat for his own purpose.
VII.
The respondent is always ready and willing to register the deed of
conveyance after receiving the balance consideration money.
VIII.
The complainant did not handover any materials of Rs. 75,000/- to
the respondent as such deduction of the same did or could at all arise.
IX.
The complainant being a company as stated in the cause title the
consumer court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.
X.
A defaulter in payment of consideration cannot get relief under
consumer protection Act.
XI.
The case so filed is not maintainable.
During
Trial;
1. The
Complainant submitted Affidavit in Chief of Evidence, which is exactly the
replica of the petition of consumer; But the complainant did not enclose any
document so far in his evidence on affidavit and did not pray to exhibit such
documents in the present consumer proceeding.
2. The
questionnaire put forward by the respondent on the evidence on affidavit submitted
by the complainant, and the complainant answered on the said questionnaire of
the respondent, some of the relevant question and answer of the complainant is
reproduced as follows;
(a) Question
No. 3 – Mr. Sen as per your affidavit you have stated that you are the
proprietor of Ashish Sen, what kind of business are you doing ?
Answer of Question No. 3 –
It is fact that I am the properitor of M/s. Ashish Sen, manufacturing and
assembling the automatic and manual door lift.
(b) Question
No. 4 – Is it true that the Opposite Party is the Owner of the land ?
Answer of Question no. 4 –
It is fact that the Opp. Party is the owner of the land.
(c) Question
no. 5 – you cannot deny that before purchase you have gone through all the
documents.
Answer of Question no. 5 –
I do not remember.
(d) Question
no. 11 – Mr. Sen had you filed any document whereof it could be ascertained
that Mr. Das as Developer has constructed the new Building ?
Answer of Question no. 11 –
I have no documentary evidence to file that the Opp. Is the developer as per
agreement it appears that the landowner is the developer of the premises no.
3/95, Sanghati Colony, P.S. Patuli now Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 700047.
(e) Question
no. 14 – Mr. Sen you cannot deny that the opposite party constructed the
building of his own appointing masons ?
Answer of Question no. 14 –
The Opp. Constructed the building by his appointed mason.
(f) Question
no. 19 – Mr. Sen have you filed any document to show that the flat is incomplete
?
Answer of Question no. 19 –
Yes, I have possess the documents.
3. The
Respondent submitted his Evidence on Affidavit, wherein reiterated the content
and purports of the written version submitted by the respondent.
4. The
questionnaire put forward by the complainant on the evidence on affidavit
submitted by the respondent, and the respondent answered on the said
questionnaire of the complainant, some of the relevant question and answer of
the respondent is reproduced as follows;
(a) Question no. 4 – Mr. Das tell me that have you
possess any documents to show that the sanction building plan is not necessary
for construction of building on the RR Plot ?
Answer of Question no. 4 –
I have no document to show the same, but it is the general procedure which used
to follow in said locality and I have only sanctioned building plan up to 1st
floor of the said building, but I obtained bank loan by mortgaging the said
building as a whole, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities sanctioned
the water and sewerage connection and CESC Limited also sanctioned electric
connection for the said building without sanctioned plan.
(b) Question
no. 7 – Mr. Das you can’t deny that you have signed in all sheets of the
agreement for sale dated 06-10-2012.
Answer of Question no. 7 –
I have signed in all sheet of the agreement for sale without my free consent as
there is much discrepancies that the draft copy of sale agreement corrected and
approved by both of us in our own hand writing specially measurement of the
flat in question.
Inspection
Report of Flat for Complainant;
3) Inspection Report on
entering flat of Shri Ashis Sen, the Complainant;
A) Tiles as
finishing of flooring : Seen 3 to
4 tiles have no 100% solid base of cement mortar underneath of 2’x2’ tiles. But
the tiles remain intact even in last 4 years. Usages such defect is within
tolerance of workmanship. From missiles
to machines to Blood pressure to Blood Sugar everything including lifts work
within limit of tolerance, So also the workmanship of tiles fitting.
B) Aluminum
windows : Seen. It
needs repair/ replacement.
C) Window
grills not painted : Need
painting
D) Insufficient
O/H Water Tank : Yes, Reply covered
in item 3A above.
E) O/S
plaster, painting, Roof protection earthing, staircase railing, stop cock
stair, etc. : Replies covered in item
3A above.
F) Care-taker/
guard room, common toilet : Not seen and not mentioned in agreement of Sale.
G) OP
occupied common area : Yes as
Thakur Ghar which remains unused area, vide details in item 3A.
H) Stand-by
pump : Not Seen
& not in Sale Agreement.
I) Iron gate
at stair of 3rd floor :
Yes exists. For detail refer 3A above of 3rd floor.
J) 3rd
floor iron gate :
Yes exist. For details refer 3A above.
K) Rubbish/
Garbage at Ground Floor passage : Not
Seen
4) Conclusion : b) It is
seen that there is no guarantee clause in Sale Agreement (annexed) and tile
limit up-to which Developer/ Builder cum O.P. shall be held responsible for
any/ all defects. By now the complainant has used the flat more than 4 years.
How far o.p. shall be held responsible is a matter of argument between Learned
Advocates & Hon’ble presiding Members of Forum to decide the matter.
Inspection
Report for the Respondent ;
I have received the
certified copy of Agreement for Sale where in SCHEDULE – A of the property
(Page-4) the 20% Super build up area is considered.
Therefore, Covered area of
flat = 763.16 sft.
(+) add 20% of 758.93 sft =
152.95 sft
Total Super Build Up area =
915.79 sft, say 916.0 sft.
Submissions;
I.
SALE
SIMPLICITER;
The Agreement for Sale
dated 06/10/2012, has to be looked into, for any furtherance into the story of
the complainant. The said agreement for sale on bare reading and as apparently
appeared that the agreement between the Vendor and the Purchaser. The said agreement
for sale does not contain any ingredient about the development of any property
and to sell or purchase thereby. The said agreement for sale is a sale
simplicitor and without any occasion of development of property, in any manner
whatsoever. In the given facts of the said agreement for sale, the sale and
purchase has been occurred between the vendor and the purchaser. The vendor is
not a developer. The vendor did not construct the building premises for sale of
flat to the intending purchaser. On the given occasion, the vendor was in dire
need of money, which the purchaser came into knowledge and approached the
vendor to take the flat against the valuable consideration, and thus the said
agreement for sale dated 6th day of October’ 2012, came into existence
between the parties of the present consumer case.
Thus
this being a sale simpliciter, this Fourm has no jurisdiction to interfere in
the case.
Our
National Commission in a recent judgment 2015 (2) CPR page 195 opined
that sale of a plot simpliciter is different from plot sold by builders or
promoters. National Commission in para 8 of the said judgment opined that there
was no evidence that the petitioner / O.P in their case were working as
builders. They are seller simpliciters. It must be born in mind that the sale
of a plot simpliciter is different from the plot sold by the building promoter.
Our Apex Court also in the case of Ganeshlal, son of Motilal Sahu Vs. Shyam in
Civil Appeal No. 331 of 2007 held It is submitted that failure to hand
over possession of the plot of land simpliciter cannot come within the
jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, State Commission or National
Commission.
We may, however,
note that when it comes to housing construction, the same has been specifically
covered under the definition of service by an amendment inserted by act 50 of
1993 with effect from 18 June, 1993. That being the position, as far as the
housing constructed by sale of
the flats by builders or societies is concerned, that would be on a different
footing. On the other hand, where a sale
of plot of land simpliciter,
the same would not be covered under the said Act. In view of above decision of
the Apex Court as well as our National Commission and the facts of the present
case being a simpliciter sale of
a plot of land or a flat not
by any promoter or developer but by simple vendor also cannot come within the
purview of this Forum and the petitioner is to approach the appropriate Forum
for redressal of his grievances and regarding the point of limitation is
concerned, the petitioner can seek the help from the Apex Court Judgment in
Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute 1995 (3) Supreme Court Cases page 583.
II.
COMMERCIAL;
M/s. Ashis Sen is a
Proprietorship Firm, which represented by its Proprietor Ashish Sen, is clearly
established a Commercial Occasion, and the said agreement for sale dated 6th
day of October’ 2012, wherein the purchaser has agreed to out right purchase at 2nd floor flat (south east
facing) morefully described in the ‘A’ Schedule of property, which again
established a Commercial Occasion. The Commercial transaction and the agreement
does not come into purview of the Consumer Protection Act, unless the same is
for the livelihood, which has not ever been described in any paragraph of the
consumer application as well as in the evidence on affidavit of the
complainant. The out right purchase or
sale is a purely commercial aspect, meaning thereby as is and where is
basis.
In Ajit Singh
Sodhi v. Estate Officer, Union Territory Chandigarh, lV (2003) CPJ 362, which is the authority given by the Chandigarh
Commission on the subject. In this ruling the previous case laws have been
discussed and the State Commission has given the finding that:-
"...In view of the law settled by the Hon'ble National
Consumer Commission, a complaint filed in respect of a plot of land
purchased at an auction sale being an out-right sale, would not
be maintainable as there was no hiring of service of the concerned development
authority. In this view of the matter, the District Forum-II was right in
holding that the complaint filed by the appellant under the provisions of the
c.p. act was not maintainable. Consequently we uphold the finding of the
District Forum that the complaint under the C.P. Act is not maintainable."
(p. 367)
Admittedly
this was also a case of auction purchase and out-right sale. In the above
ruling of Ajit Singh Sodhi's case (supra) the rulings given by the National
Commission namely, Shiela Construction (P.)
Ltd. v. Nainital Lake Development Authority, 1997
(1) CLT 330 and Tamil Nadu Housing Board
v. R. Sivasubramaniayan, III (1998)
CPJ 39, were referred. In these two rulings also it has specifically
held that:
"Consumer Forum could not grant any relief in matters
where the transaction had arisen out of auction sale, which amounted
to out-right sale of immovable property and there was no arrangement
of hiring of service for consideration between the parties."
The ruling reported in Housing Commissioner, U.P. Housing &
Development Board v. Hirdaya Narain Singh, III (2000) CPJ 163. This ruling in fact is against the complainant wherein in the
very first line it has been held that:
"No doubt, if it
is an out-right sale then the complainant will not be a consumer as per Consumer
Protection Act. ..."
(p. 163)
The present agreement for
sale dated 6th day of October’ 2012, wherein the purchaser has
agreed to out right purchase
at 2nd floor flat (south east facing) morefully described in the ‘A’
Schedule of property, does not left any doubt that the sale is out-right sale
and then the complainant will not be a consumer, as meant for The Consumer
Protection Act.
Now, we look into the
following;
(a) Question No. 3 – Mr. Sen as per your affidavit you have stated that
you are the proprietor of Ashish Sen, what kind of business are you doing ? (
question put forward by the O.P.)
Answer of Question No. 3 –
It is fact that I am the proprietor of M/s. Ashish Sen, manufacturing and
assembling the automatic and manual door lift.
(Answer by the Complainant)
Admittedly, there is a
close and direct nexus between the purpose of purchase of generating sets and
the commercial activity of manufacturing and assembling the automatic and manual
door lift, for trade carried on by the complainant’s company. Since, manufacturing
and assembling the automatic and manual door lift for the purpose of trade is a
Commercial activity, which sufficiently established that the Complainant is not
a Consumer as meant for the Consumer Protection Act, since the word
“Commercial” is excluded in the definition and not included in the Act.
In Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical
Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and Order, reported in 2020 SCC 2 265,
it has been summarize the broad principles to be culled out for determining the
activity or transaction is “Commercial purpose”
“7.
To summarize from the above discussion, though a straight-
jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles
can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is 'for a
commercial purpose':
(i)
The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, 'commercial
purpose' is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or
business-to-business transactions between commercial entities.
(ii)
The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a
profit-generating activity.
(iii)
The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction
is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It
has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the
transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser
and/or their beneficiary.
(iv)
If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service
was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their
beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the
question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of 'generating
livelihood by means of self- employment' need not be looked into.”
III.
ALLEGATIONS
NOT PROVED;
Allegations of Complainant
not proved by way of Inspection Reports;
The
allegations relating to Insufficient O/H Water Tank, Outside Plaster, painting,
Roof Protection earting, staircase railing, stop cock stair, etc, care taker/
guard room, common toilet, O.P. Occupied Common area, Stand by pump, Iron gate
at stair of 3rd floor, 3rd floor Iron gate, Rubbish/
Garbage at Ground Floor passage, etc. are all common benefits or common
facilities and in order to obtain relief, a ‘class action’ is required in
accordance with Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. For appreciation of the
situation, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Section
12(1)(c) of the Act which provides :-
“Manner
in which complaint shall be made.
1.
A complaint in relation any
goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service
provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by –
a.
.......
b.
........
c.
One or more consumers,
where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the
permission of the District Forum, on behalf of or for the benefit of, all
consumers so interested”.
Admittedly,
07 flats are there and only one of them have filed this complaint. This
indicates that other flat owners are either satisfied with the construction
made by the developer or not interested to lodge complaint. In any case,
perusal of prayer clause would show that the relief has not been claimed for
other similarly placed persons.
The
interpretation and scope of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act was the subject matter
of adjudication before Three-Member Bench of the Hon’ble National Consumer
Commission reported in I (2017) CPJ 1 (Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. – vs.
– Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.). While dealing with the scope of
Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, the Hon’ble Commission has observed thus –
“The
primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate the
decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are
interested, without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint, it
is necessary that such a complaint is filed on behalf or for the benefit of all
the persons having such a community of interest. A complaint on behalf of
only some of them, therefore, will not be maintainable. If for instance,
100 flat buyers/plot buyers in a project have a common grievance against the
Builder/Developer and a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of say 10 of them, the
primary purpose behind permitting a class action will not be achieved, since
the remaining 90 agreed persons will be compelled either to file individual
complaint or to file complaints on behalf of or for the benefit of the
different group of purchasers in the same project. This, in our view,
could not have the legislative intent. The term ‘persons interested’ and
‘persons having the same interest’ used in Section 12(1)(c) means the persons
having a common grievance against the same service provider. The use of
the words ‘all consumers so interested’ and ‘on behalf of or for the benefit of
all consumers so interested’, in Section 12(1)(c) leaves no doubt that such a
complaint must necessarily be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons
having a common grievance, seeking common relief and consequently having
community of interest against the said service provider”.
The
materials on record indicate that the complainant has not filed any application
with a prayer to file the complaint in a representative capacity in accordance
with the provisions of Section 13(6) of the Act. Under the garb of
Section 12(1)(c) or Section 13(6) of the Act which are primarily meant for
common services, e.g. deficiency in maintaining common areas or common
facilities, complaint regarding goods are not maintainable before this
Commission particularly, when the flats were booked for different amount on
different dates under different terms and conditions. If complaint
pertaining to deficiency in goods pertaining to many complaints is allowed in
one complaint, it will create serious problem as observed by a Larger Bench of
Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla &
21 Ors. (supra).
Therefore,
the complainant is not entitled to any relief so far the allegation of
deficiencies as contained in the petition of complaint is concerned.
Judicial
Precedents;
Sale
Simpliciter ;
1. Ganeshlal, son of Motilal Sahu
Vs. Shyam in Civil Appeal No. 331 of 2007;
Out-Right
Sale ;
2. Ajit Singh Sodhi v. Estate Officer,
Union Territory Chandigarh, lV (2003) CPJ 362;
3. Shiela Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Nainital Lake
Development Authority, 1997 (1) CLT 330;
4. Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. R. Sivasubramaniayan, III (1998) CPJ 39;
5. Housing
Commissioner, U.P. Housing & Development Board v. Hirdaya
Narain Singh, III (2000) CPJ 163;
Commercial
Purpose;
6.
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers
and Order, reported in 2020 SCC 2 265;
Class-action
Suit;
7.
Reported in I (2017) CPJ 1 (Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. –
vs. – Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.);
Limitation
in approaching appropriate forum;
8.
Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial
Institute 1995 (3)
Supreme Court Cases page 583;
--------------------------------------XXX---------------------------------
