Skip to main content

Builder held liable for not delivering possession

Holding a construction firm guilty of "deficiency in service", Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has asked it to hand over possession of two flats to a purchaser or refund the money already paid with interest. 

The forum, comprising presiding member S R Khanzode and member S B Sawarkar, passed the order on an appeal filed by Mathew Varghese against S S Construction last week. 

It also asked the firm to pay Varghese Rs 50,000 as cost incurred for legal proceedings. 

Varghese had agreed to buy two flats in the firm's project in Nashik. Of the total Rs 9.69 lakh, he paid Rs 9.43 lakh, and the balance was to be paid while taking the possession. 

But the company did not execute the written agreement and failed to deliver possession, his complaint said. 

The company argued that it had demanded Rs 2 lakh as a part-payment in 2002, and since it was not paid by due date, it terminated the agreement by a letter dated February 10, 2004, asking Varghese to take back the money he had paid. 

The complainant denied having received any letter, saying he was not aware that the agreement had been terminated. 

The district forum held that Varghese should establish that he did not get any communication on termination. But the state forum disagreed, saying that "once the complainant denies having received any such communication, it is for the opponents to establish the said fact". 

The company failed to provide any proof about posting of the letter of termination, it said, adding that "under the circumstances, the agreement must be held as subsisting". 

If the company was not ready to hand over the possession, it should refund the amount paid with 24 per cent interest with effect from October 2008 (the date of filing of complaint), the state forum ruled. 

 Article referred : http://zeenews.india.com/news/maharashtra/builder-held-liable-for-not-delivering-possession_848065.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more