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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more