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

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

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

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