Skip to main content

Builder to pay Rs 40 lakh for flouting development deal

The Maharashtra State consumer disputes redressal commission in a significant order held that not delivering flats under a development agreement to a landowner amounts to deficiency in service and require the developer to either hand over possession of the flats or compensate for the loss. The State commission on Tuesday set aside a 2011 order of a Sangli district forum and directed a developer to pay Rs 10 lakh, the price of the flat, each to four persons within two months or with 9 % interest if paid later.

A district forum passed a similar order in connection with a flat in Powai.

In the order passed by State commission president Justice R C Chavan and member Dhanraj Khamatkar, it said since no flats were available the developer was directed to pay the price of the flat as compensation.

The case dated back to a development agreement of 2004 between co-owners of a land with Balaji Construction in Sangli to construct a residential and commercial complex and hand over six flats of 450 sq ft super built-up area to the land owners Anusayabai Sakate, Pramod Sakate, Mandakini Dethe, Vilasini Chopade, Suhasini Lokhande and Vinod Sakate and an amount of Rs 3 lakh to mother of the co-owners. The developer handed over only two flats and hence the dispute arose.

The developer did not appear before the district forum nor did he appear before the state commission despite being served. The district forum had dismissed the complaint against the developer since the flats were no longer available.

The commissions said the developers "miserably failed to handover possession of the flat.'' It amounts to deficiency in service it said and added, "even if the flats were unavailable, the District Forum should have granted compensation—the value of the land as per the ready reckoner. It failed to take into consideration this important fact.''

In the second case, filed thorough the Consumer Welfare Association of India, Kalwa resident had accused Powai Housing Development Pvt Ltd of not handing over a flat booked in 1983. The flat buyer S B Dhas, alleged that he had booked the 520 square feet flat in an upcoming building and paid Rs 26,000 in five installments. 15th May, 2002. Dhas however, received a letter on May 15, 2002 telling him that the building was not constructed due to litigation pending before the Bombay High Court since 1993. When he sought a refund, he got no response from the construction company. Dhas then filed the complaint before Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in 2010.

Granting his plea for a refund with nine percent interest from the date of the last payment in 1986, the form ordered the company to pay him a compensation of Rs 1.05 lakh. "The fact remains that the complainant is deprived from his flat due to litigation. The Opponent received payment from the complainant. The Opponent is responsible for the litigation. Therefore, the Opponent is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the suffering of the complainant," the forum said.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Mumbai/Builder-to-pay-Rs-40-lakh-for-flouting-development-deal/articleshow/38585911.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil