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

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