E.M. NAJEEB vs M/S. SOURTHERN INVESTMENTS — C.A. No. 2822/2011
Case under Section I-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010284162009
Filing Date
16-Sep-2009
Registration No
C.A. No. 2822/2011
Diary Number
28416/2009
Order Date
08-Sep-2021
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 07-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.E.M. NAJEEB
Adv. RADHA SHYAM JENA
Respondent(s)
-
1.M/S. SOURTHERN INVESTMENTS
Adv. N. ANNAPOORANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Sep-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Sep-2021
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
-
07-Sep-2021
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
-
02-Sep-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Feb-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Aug-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Jan-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Mar-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Feb-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Jan-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Jan-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Nov-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Oct-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Sep-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Jul-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Apr-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Feb-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Sep-2009
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 2822/2011
Case Summary: C.A. No. 002822/2011 — E.M. Najeeb v. M/S. Southern Investments Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed E.M. Najeeb's appeal on September 8, 2021, upholding the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order. The court applied an equity-based approach, canceling out mutual claims: Najeeb's demand for Rs. 4,59,102/- outstanding payment was offset against Southern Investments' liability for 12% interest on a two-year delay (1998-2000) in flat possession. No interest was awarded to either party, and the complainant received no relief after 2000 for failure to complete contractual payments. The court found both parties at fault and declined additional relief despite precedent that developers cannot rely on delays as defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts