Skip to main content

Supreme Court orders builder to repay Rs 33 crore maintenance fees

Dealing a blow to builders who don't deliver on promises, the Supreme Court has asked a developer in Gurgaon to refund residents Rs 33.38 crore — 70% of the maintenance fees it had collected since 2002 - for failing to provide the amenities it had committed to at the time of purchase.

A bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel on Friday upheld a March 19 ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directing the developers of Ambience Lagoon Apartments to refund 70% of the total maintenance money collected over 11 years to 345 flat owners for failing to offer services commensurate with the maintenance charged.

There are 15 blocks in Ambience Lagoon Apartments, located behind Ambience Mall on NH8. At the time of allotment of flats, the buyers were promised one lift for every 10 flats. But in most blocks, only two lifts were provided instead of the four promised.

In November 2004, 66 residents of Ambience Lagoon moved court against Raj Singh Gehlot and his company, Ambience Pvt Ltd, for poor maintenance of lifts. The case dragged on, and finally, on March 19 this year, the NCDRC passed its judgment.

But the company moved the Supreme Court where it was represented by top-flight lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi. The residents were represented by Kamini Jaiswal.

Depending on the size of the flat, each resident will now get back anything between Rs 6 lakh and Rs 15 lakh.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/No-retrospective-effect-of-new-capital-gains-tax-rules/articleshow/41565536.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more