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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more