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

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