Skip to main content

Builder loses Rs 26.5L for not handing over Rs 3L flat

A builder will have to pay a Chembur resident Rs 23.8 lakh for not handing possession of a 680-sq ft flat booked for Rs 2.72 lakh in 1994. P K Constructions and its former partners will also have to pay the complainant, Lokeshwar Singh Kshatriya, compensation of around Rs 6.5 lakh.

Kshatriya bought the flat in an upcoming housing complex known as Mahaveer Nagar in Mira Road. He paid Rs 2.72 lakh, along with Rs 35,320 towards maintenance charges, etc. Though the builder had agreed to grant possession soon, there was no development for several years.

Kshatriya alleged that he eventually learnt that in April 2009 the builder had demolished the building where the flat was situated and so the possibility of getting the flat vanished. In 2010, he filed a complaint in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, praying for either possession of the flat in the same project or any other project undertaken by the builder. Alternatively, he claimed compensation of Rs 23.8 lakh, the market value of the flat in 2010.

The two partners in the construction company filed their reply to the complaint and alleged that the firm was dissolved in 1999. The former partners contended that the building was demolished and the project handed over to another builder. The new builder had shown a willingness to make another flat available to the complainant and hence the complaint was premature.

But the commission said there was no agreement to show there was a willingness to make another flat available. "The new builder to whom the opponent had assigned the rights or sold the project is not a party before us. Under the circumstances, the deficiency in service to not hand over the flat agreed upon is well-established."

It said that since it was not possible to direct the builders to hand over possession, it was proper and just to consider the alternative relief. The commission directed both partners of the erstwhile firm to pay compensation to Kshatriya.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-06/mumbai/41130409_1_rs-6-5-lakh-builder-23-8-lakh

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...