Skip to main content

Builder Moves Court Fearing Buyers’ Agitation, Told To Grant Them Access

In Vijay Gupta vs Greenpolis Welfare Association, the the chairman of a real estate company approached a Delhi court seeking injunction against home buyers coming to his house or office following delay in possession of flats.

The case pertains to Vijay Gupta, chairman-cum-MD of Orris Infrastructure Ltd. The company, in arrangement with another company, started a residential project called Greenpolis in Gurgaon, Haryana.

The possession got delayed and the buyers got anxious. Their attempts at meeting Gupta as “Greenopolis welfare association” did not work out in a positive direction.

The association had informed Gupta on September 3 that the buyers are left with no other option but to hold peaceful agitation at his office and residence on September 9.

Calling the assembly of hundreds of buyers at his doorsteps illegal, Gupta came to court seeking an injunction saying the buyers might turn aggressive like what happened recently in Haryana’s Panchkula where thousands of supporters of Ram Rahim turned violent.

However, instead of grating an injunction to the builder, the court presided by senior civil judge Sunil Beniwal directed him to grant complete and unrestricted access to buyers, over 1,400 in number, and their counsel Piyush Singh for the purpose of trying to achieve a amicable solution and compromise.

The court noted his residential and official address too, where he would be meeting the buyers on Saturday.Singh said this is first of its kind order by a court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more