Notable Cases Involving ABS Land Developers

 there have been several legal cases filed against ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd., primarily concerning issues like delayed possession, non-delivery of plots, and deficiency in services. These cases have been adjudicated in various consumer forums across West Bengal.

Notable Cases Involving ABS Land Developers

1. Mr. Debasis Ghosh v. ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2015)

   • Court: State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal

   • Issue: The complainant alleged non-delivery of a plot despite payment.

   • Outcome: The case was heard under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

   • Golam Mohiuddin v. ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd.

     • Court: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

     • Issue: The complainant sought refund and compensation due to non-delivery of a plot.

     • Outcome: The case was dismissed on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the total value exceeded the State Commission's limit.

     • Sri Sumit Saha v. ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd.

       • Court: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas

       • Issue: The complainant alleged non-delivery of two plots despite payment.

       • Outcome: The forum ordered a refund of ₹2,78,934 and compensation, noting the company's history of similar complaints

       • Krishna Pada Poddar v. ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd.

         • Court: State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal

         • Issue: The complainant sought redressal for non-delivery of a plot.

         • Outcome: The case was appealed, indicating ongoing legal proceedings

         • ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Donald Mukherjee

           • Court: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata

           • Issue: The developer appealed a decision, suggesting disputes over contractual obligations.

           • Steps to Take If You Are Facing Issues with ABS Land Developers

             If you're experiencing problems with ABS Land Developers, consider the following steps:

             • Document Everything: Keep records of all communications, payments, and agreements.

             • Send a Legal Notice: Before approaching a consumer forum, send a formal notice outlining your grievances and demanding resolution.

             • File a Complaint: If the issue remains unresolved, file a complaint with the appropriate consumer forum.

             • 
               

The appointment of an Engineer Commissioner (or Court Commissioner) cannot ordinarily be refused

 The appointment of an Engineer Commissioner (or Court Commissioner) cannot ordinarily be refused when the court finds it necessary for a just and proper adjudication of facts — especially in disputes involving property boundaries, encroachments, or physical conditions of land.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Purpose of Commissioner:

   • A commissioner is appointed under Order XXVI of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to assist the court in gathering factual, physical, or technical evidence — particularly when such facts are better observed firsthand than explained in words.

2. When courts allow appointment:

   • In land or property disputes involving:

     • Boundaries, possession, or encroachment

     • Measurement or physical features

     • Access to the property (e.g., right of way)

   • Courts have consistently held that refusing a commission in such cases amounts to denial of justice.

3. Important Case Law:

   • K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1954 Bom 358 – Held that a commissioner can be appointed to inspect a site when physical inspection is necessary.

   • Velusamy v. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 – Recognized the value of local investigation via commissioner.

   • Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79 – Courts must not mechanically refuse a prayer for local inspection if it aids just decision.

Conclusion:

A court should not refuse the appointment of an Engineer Commissioner where:

• The facts in dispute are physical and technical in nature.

• The appointment would assist in reaching a just conclusion.

• The request is not a delay tactic.

If your request for appointment of an Engineer Commissioner has been rejected, you may have grounds to challenge the order (e.g., through a revision or appeal, depending on the context).

to determine whether your specific case qualifies as a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 to determine whether your specific case qualifies as a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, I’ll need a few key details:

1. Who sold you the plot?
   (e.g., a real estate company, a cooperative society, a private individual)

2. Why did you purchase the plot?
   (e.g., for personal residence, investment, commercial project)

3. What exactly is the problem?
   (e.g., delay in possession, non-delivery, defective title, fraud, no development as promised)

4. Do you have a written agreement or payment proof?

Disputes regarding a plot of land may or may not be considered consumer disputes

 Disputes regarding a plot of land may or may not be considered consumer disputes, depending on the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties. Here's how it breaks down under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:

✅ When it is a consumer dispute:

A dispute regarding a plot of land is treated as a consumer dispute if:

• The plot was purchased from a real estate developer, builder, or promoter for consideration.

• The buyer is a consumer (i.e., buying the plot for personal use, not for resale or commercial purposes).

• There is a deficiency in service, such as:

  • Non-delivery of the plot after taking payment.

  • Delay in handing over possession.

  • Not providing promised amenities or approvals.

  • Fraudulent misrepresentation.

❌ When it is not a consumer dispute:

It is not a consumer dispute if:

• The transaction is between two private individuals (not involving a trader or service provider).

• The complainant is not a consumer (e.g., buying land for commercial resale).

• The dispute is about title, ownership, or possession arising out of inheritance, partition, or similar civil matters — these are generally civil disputes, not consumer disputes.

Relevant Case Law:

• Kishore Lal v. Chairman, ESI Corporation (2007) – Clarified who qualifies as a consumer.

• Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima (2018) – Recognized delay in possession of a flat/plot as a consumer matter.

Notable judicial decisions interpreting the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) Act, 1972

 Here are notable judicial decisions interpreting the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) Act, 1972, and its associated rules:

---

1. Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: October 29, 2010
Citation: (2010) 13 SCC 427

This landmark case addressed the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings under the MPEDA framework. The Supreme Court emphasized that authorities must provide a fair hearing and avoid a "closed mind" approach when issuing show-cause notices. The Court found that the cancellation of the appellant's registration under Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules, 1972, was procedurally flawed due to prejudgment by the authority.

2. Kumar Textiles v. Marine Products Export Development Authority

Court: Madras High Court
Date: February 16, 2007
Citation: W.P. Nos. 9716 & 3208 (Md) of 2006

In this case, merchant exporters challenged MPEDA's directive requiring them to establish handling centers for dried fish exports. The petitioners argued that, as non-manufacturers, such a requirement was burdensome and beyond MPEDA's authority. The Court examined Sections 9(2)(f) and 9(2)(c) of the MPEDA Act and Rule 32(i) of the MPEDA Rules, ultimately highlighting the need for MPEDA to balance regulatory objectives with the practicalities faced by exporters.

3. Marine Products Export Development Authority v. A. Geetha & Others

Court: Kerala High Court
Date: [Date Not Specified]
Citation: O.P. No. 7539/1990

This case involved employment disputes within MPEDA, focusing on service matters and the applicability of the MPEDA Act's provisions to internal administrative decisions. The Court's decision reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in employment-related actions under the Act.

4. S. Jagannath v. Union of India

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: December 11, 1996
Citation: W.P. No. 561/1994

Although not directly under the MPEDA Act, this significant case addressed environmental concerns related to aquaculture practices. The Supreme Court mandated the regulation of shrimp farming activities, emphasizing sustainable development and environmental protection. The judgment had implications for MPEDA's role in promoting environmentally sustainable practices within the marine products industry.

These cases illustrate the judiciary's role in interpreting the MPEDA Act and ensuring that the Authority's actions align with legal and constitutional principles.

The Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972)

 The Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) is a central legislation enacted by the Government of India to establish the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA). The primary objective of this Act is to promote the development of the marine products industry, with a special emphasis on exports, under the control of the Union Government.

---

📘 Key Provisions of the MPEDA Act, 1972

1. Establishment of MPEDA (Section 4)

• The Act provides for the establishment of the Marine Products Export Development Authority as a statutory body.

• MPEDA is constituted as a body corporate with perpetual succession, a common seal, and the power to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.

2. Functions of the Authority (Section 9)

MPEDA is entrusted with several functions aimed at the development of the marine products industry:

• Developing and regulating offshore and deep-sea fishing.

• Registering fishing vessels, processing plants, storage premises, and conveyances used for the transport of marine products.

• Fixing standards and specifications for marine products intended for export.

• Rendering financial or other assistance to stakeholders in the marine products industry.

• Carrying out inspections to ensure the quality of marine products.

• Regulating the export of marine products.

• Improving the marketing of marine products outside India.

• Collecting and publishing statistics related to the marine products industry.

• Providing training in various aspects of the marine products industry.

3. Registration (Chapter III)

• The Act mandates the registration of exporters, fishing vessels, processing plants, storage premises, and conveyances involved in the marine products industry.

• MPEDA is responsible for granting, renewing, suspending, or canceling such registrations as per the prescribed rules.

4. Finance, Accounts, and Audit (Chapter IV)

• The Central Government may provide grants and loans to MPEDA for carrying out its functions.

• A fund called the "Marine Products Export Development Fund" is established, into which all receipts of the Authority are credited.

• MPEDA is required to maintain proper accounts and have them audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India.

5. Control by Central Government (Chapter V)

• The Central Government has the power to issue directions to MPEDA on policy matters.

• MPEDA is required to furnish returns, statements, and other information as the Central Government may require.

6. Miscellaneous Provisions (Chapter VI)

• The Act includes provisions related to penalties for contraventions, offences by companies, protection of action taken in good faith, and the power to make rules and regulations.

The Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) Rules, 1972

 The Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) Rules, 1972 were established under Section 33 of the MPEDA Act, 1972 to provide detailed procedures and regulatory frameworks for the functioning of MPEDA. These rules came into effect on July 26, 1972, with certain provisions, such as Chapter VII, enforced later on August 25, 1978.

---

📘 Key Provisions of the MPEDA Rules, 1972

1. Constitution of the Authority and Committees

• The rules outline the composition of MPEDA, including the appointment of a Chairman and members representing various sectors such as fisheries, exporters, and government departments.

• MPEDA is empowered to appoint committees to efficiently discharge its duties and perform its functions under the Act.

2. Registration Procedures

• Entities involved in the marine products industry, including exporters, fishing vessels, processing plants, storage premises, and conveyances, are required to register with MPEDA.

• Specific forms (e.g., Form VI, Form VII) are prescribed for different types of registrations, detailing the information and documentation required.

• Certificates of Registration are issued upon compliance with the stipulated conditions, and any changes in layout, design, or ownership must be approved by MPEDA.

3. Standards and Compliance

• Registered entities must adhere to sanitary and hygienic requirements as specified by MPEDA and the Export Inspection Agency.

• Only approved chemicals should be used for the preservation, processing, and storage of marine products.

• Regular inspections may be conducted to ensure compliance with the prescribed standards.

4. Record-Keeping and Reporting

• Entities are mandated to maintain detailed records of their operations, including quantities of raw materials received, processed, and dispatched.

• These records should be readily available for inspection by MPEDA officials.

5. Amendments and Updates

• The rules have been subject to amendments to address evolving industry practices and regulatory requirements.

• For instance, proposed amendments in 2021 aimed to refine definitions and streamline registration processes.