Skip to main content

Real estate firm directed to pay Rs 4.77 cr for 'huge delay'

A real estate firm has been directed by the apex consumer commission to pay Rs 4.77 crore to seven consumers for "huge delay" in handing over apartments to them noting that the builder had attempted to make profit at the cost of others.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Justice J M Malik noted that the apartments booked nine years ago in Greater Noida were yet to be delivered by Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt Ltd and asked it to pay Rs 4,77,58,658 with 18 per cent interest to the seven consumers.

"There is a magic in that little word 'home'. It is a mystic circle and surrounds comforts and virtues, never known beyond its hollowed limits. However, customers are exasperated by senseless delay made by the Builder of a colony," the commission said.

"It must be borne in mind that there is a huge delay in handing over possession of the premises in dispute, i.E., about 9 years. The Opposite Party (builder) has made an attempt to feather its own nest, i.E., to make profits for itself, at the cost of others' expenses. The Opposite Party has utilised the amount for its own purposes," it said.

The commission also directed the firm to pay Rs one lakh each to the complainants for harassment and mental agony.

According to the complainants, in 2006-07, the real-estate firm had advertised for availability of flats in their projects 'Unitech Verve' in Sector Pi-II at Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh which was scheduled to be delivered within 36 months of signing of allotment letter.

The seven complainants said that they had applied for flats, either individually or jointly, and had paid the money demanded by the builder.

However, after the project got delayed, they filed complaint before the commission in October 2012.

The firm submitted before the commission that it was unable to hand over the possession of apartments to them.

It, however, submitted that it was ready to pay 10 per cent interest to the consumers as per the agreement entered into between the parties.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/real-estate-firm-directed-to-pay-rs-4-77-cr-for-huge-delay-115050800990_1.html

Comments

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.

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.

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...