Skip to main content

DLF ordered to pay Rs 6 lakh to buyer in failed project

Real estate firm DLF has been asked to pay Rs 6 lakh to a man, who had booked a flat in its project which failed to take off, by a consumer forum here which held it guilty of deficiency in service and "unfair trade practice".

"...we hold opposite party (OP) guilty of deficiency and unfair trade practice in not refunding the deposit. We direct OP to return Rs 5 lakh...and pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh for harassment, deficiency and litigation expenses," New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, said.

It noted that it was one of the many cases against the construction company with regard to its failed project and directed DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Pvt Ltd to pay the money to Gurgaon-based Ashesh Nanda.

The forum's bench, also comprising member S R Chaudhary, held that once the project has failed, there is no question of consumer being forced to continue with booking for such a project as it was "only imaginary castle building".

"This forum has already in number of cases of this project of opposite party has ordered refund of provisional deposit, after holding that once the project has failed, there is no question of consumer being forced to continue with booking for such a project for lay off... The provisional booking without anything moving forward in reality is only imaginary castle building and unfair trade practice," the forum said. Nanda had told the forum that he had made provisional booking in company's New Town Heights project in Gurgaon by depositing Rs five lakh on March 31, 2008.

The company denied the allegations saying that the exit option was not available to Nanda as he had not deposited a part of his payment.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/DLF-ordered-to-pay-Rs-6-lakh-to-buyer-in-failed-project/articleshow/40725897.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
3 comments
Read more