Skip to main content

Developer can’t cancel agreement unilaterally: Panel

The state consumer disputes redressal commission has held that a builder or property developer cannot unilaterally terminate a registered agreement between him and the buyer of a flat.

Dismissing an appeal by a Pune-based builder, a two-member bench of the commission, headed by S A Kulkarni, also held on June 12 that lopsided agreements favouring the builder more and going against the provisions of the Maharashtra Flat Ownership Act cannot be legally sustained.

The matter is related to a community housing scheme developed at Dhanori along the Vishrantwandi Road by Sankalpa Constructions, a partnership firm headed by Prabhakar Bhosale and Vandana Bhosale. The company entered into the position of service provider by undertaking construction activity of small tenements for distribution among members of a particular community. It signed agreements with individual members of the scheme and registered the same.

 One of the members, Haribhau J Ghode of Bhairavinagar, who filed a complaint with the Pune district consumer disputes redressal forum, was required to pay Rs 1.50 lakh remainder of the purchase amount for the tenement in the scheme.

However, citing an alleged default on the part of Ghode, the construction company issued a letter to him in 2009 unilaterally cancelling the agreement. He was also asked to exit the scheme by collecting the money he had paid till then. Ghode moved the district forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the builder despite his willingness to pay the balance consideration.

On June 5, 2014, the district forum passed a decree in favour of the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the construction company moved the state consumer commission arguing that the decree was ex-parte and no defence was considered by the trial forum, thereby, the company lost an opportunity to contest the complaint.

In its ruling, the commission bench, which also included member Uma S Bora, observed, "Undisputedly, the company, as the builder/developer, executed a registered agreement with the requisite terms and conditions mostly favourable to them and may be against the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. However, the company forgot that such terms and conditions would not hold any water if they are opposing the provisions of law."

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Developer-cant-cancel-agreement-unilaterally-Panel/articleshow/47714327.cms

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

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

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