Skip to main content

Real estate firm directed to pay Rs 4.77 cr for 'huge delay'

A real estate firm has been directed by the apex consumer commission to pay Rs 4.77 crore to seven consumers for "huge delay" in handing over apartments to them noting that the builder had attempted to make profit at the cost of others.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Justice J M Malik noted that the apartments booked nine years ago in Greater Noida were yet to be delivered by Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt Ltd and asked it to pay Rs 4,77,58,658 with 18 per cent interest to the seven consumers.

"There is a magic in that little word 'home'. It is a mystic circle and surrounds comforts and virtues, never known beyond its hollowed limits. However, customers are exasperated by senseless delay made by the Builder of a colony," the commission said.

"It must be borne in mind that there is a huge delay in handing over possession of the premises in dispute, i.E., about 9 years. The Opposite Party (builder) has made an attempt to feather its own nest, i.E., to make profits for itself, at the cost of others' expenses. The Opposite Party has utilised the amount for its own purposes," it said.

The commission also directed the firm to pay Rs one lakh each to the complainants for harassment and mental agony.

According to the complainants, in 2006-07, the real-estate firm had advertised for availability of flats in their projects 'Unitech Verve' in Sector Pi-II at Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh which was scheduled to be delivered within 36 months of signing of allotment letter.

The seven complainants said that they had applied for flats, either individually or jointly, and had paid the money demanded by the builder.

However, after the project got delayed, they filed complaint before the commission in October 2012.

The firm submitted before the commission that it was unable to hand over the possession of apartments to them.

It, however, submitted that it was ready to pay 10 per cent interest to the consumers as per the agreement entered into between the parties.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/real-estate-firm-directed-to-pay-rs-4-77-cr-for-huge-delay-115050800990_1.html

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