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

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

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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more