Skip to main content

Allotment agency can't ask enhanced price for alternate flat

DDA has been directed to give a compensation of Rs two lakh to a man who was asked to pay a revised amount for an alternative flat after it could not hand him possession of a previously alloted property and fought a 24-year legal battle against it.

While asking Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot the new flat to Noida resident R K Bhilwaria at the previous rate, New Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said, "In case allotment agency cancels a particular flat and allots an alternative one, it is not entitled to any enhanced price of flat".

The order came by the commission, presided by Salma Noor, after noting that Bhilwaria had already paid the registration charges for the the flat he was allotted earlier and now DDA was asking revised price for the alternative flat.

A district consumer forum had earlier asked the DDA to pay the compensation money to Bhilwaria, who has been fighting the legal battle for 24 years, besides the allotment of the flat without charging anything from him.

The authority then filed an appeal in the state commission against the order which was rejected.

"It is a settled principle of law that in case allotment agency cancels a particular flat and allots an alternative one, it is not entitled to any enhanced price of the flat. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the contention of the appellant (DDA) that it is entitled to the difference of Rs 7,025, is of no avail," the commission's bench, also comprising its judicial member N P Kaushik, said.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/allotment-agency-can-t-ask-enhanced-price-for-alternate-flat-114090900891_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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