Skip to main content

Interest cannot be awarded to buyer for his/her own delay in taking possession

In M/s. Supertech Ltd. VS Rajni Goyal, The dispute concerned a project named ‘Capetown’ developed by the builder in Noida. A flat was allotted by the builder in this development to one Ms. Rajni Goyal in May, 2012, with the Allotment Letter stating that possession would be handed over in October, 2013. The letter allowed extension upto a maximum period of six months due to unforeseen circumstances.

However, the builder handed over a Pre​-Possession Letter to Ms. Goyal only in October 2015, for completion of formalities, before possession could Learn more be handed over. With the letter, she was called upon to pay Rs. 12,35,656 towards the balance cost of the flat and several other charges. She, however, failed to pay the charges.

Ms. Goyal, then, after over fifteen months, in March, 2017, filed a Consumer Complaint before the National Commission which was allowed. Review petition filed against the said order was dismissed after which the builder approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained by the builder in April 2016, and that Ms. Goyal could not have had any further grievance after that. It, therefore, stating that the Respondent – Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession, directed the period of compensation to be computed from May, 2014 to April, 2016, despite the fact that she approached the Commission in March, 2017.

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