Summary
The Supreme Court restored Three C Universal Developers as a party to consumer complaints concerning a housing project. The pleaded marketing, contractual and special-purpose-company relationships, together with material supplied by that company, furnished a basis for its participation. Deleting it at admission was premature. The Court did not determine final promoter liability or the relief ultimately payable; all parties’ rights and contentions remained open before the National Commission.
Issues
- Whether deletion of the alleged principal promoter at admission of the consumer complaints was justified.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(zk), Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016The Court noted the buyers’ reliance on the promoter definition and its explanation concerning distinct construction and selling entities, while reserving ultimate liability. (¶ 10–14)
Held
- The complaint alleged common project marketing and a special-purpose-company arrangement, while the deleted company acknowledged participation in the consortium and a construction agreement. The record did not permit treating it as wholly unconnected or impleaded without basis. (¶ 5–12)
- Deletion at this stage was unwarranted. The complaints were admitted against both entities, with the relief and all rights and contentions to be determined at the final hearing. (¶ 11–14)
- The companion deletion order was set aside on the same terms. (¶ 17–20)
Result
Appeals disposed of by setting aside the deletion orders and restoring Three C Universal Developers as a party. Complaints to proceed against both respondents; merits and all contentions open. No costs.