In Brief
In this consumer protection case, the Supreme Court examined whether a landowner sharing project revenue could be held liable alongside a developer for failing to complete a housing project. The Court held that merely signing a tripartite agreement as a 'confirming party' and sharing revenues does not impose consumer-facing obligations on the landowner. Liability under the Consumer Protection Act requires privity of contract or an express obligation to provide service. The Court set aside the NCDRC's order but remanded the case, allowing respondents to amend pleadings to pursue novel doctrines like lifting the corporate veil if properly pleaded, while preserving all defences for the landowner.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.