Bombay High Court
Nahar Homes Llp vs Sarang Joshi on 10 May, 2024
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
908& 909_sast_12606_2024 &_12603_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.12606 OF 2024
Nahar Homes LLP ...Appellant
Versus
Sarang Joshi and Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.12603 OF 2024
Nahar Homes LLP ...Appellant
Versus
Sarang Joshi and Anr. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Surel Shah with Mr. Chinmay Patil and Mr. Seoul Shah for the
Appellants.
Mr. Aman Shukla i/b. Mr. Anil D'souza for the Respondents.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 10 MAY 2024.
PC:
1. This appears to be an unfortunate case where two flats were agreed to be sold to the Respondents under the subvention scheme, under which the Respondents paid initial amount of 10%, the Financer paid amount towards 80% consideration to the Appellant-
MEGHA Promoter and the Respondents were to pay balance 10% at the time SHREEDHAR PARAB Digitally signed by MEGHA of the possession. There appears to be some misunderstanding SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2024.05.13 17:22:29 +0530 between the Respondents-allottee and Appellant-Promoter, which Megha 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2024 19:22:07 ::: 908& 909_sast_12606_2024 &_12603_fc.docx led to possession of the flats not being taken over by the Respondents. It appears that the Appellant-promoter discontinued servicing of pre-EMI interest in respect of the loan amounts after November 2019 in respect of one flat and after March-2019 in respect of the other flat. On account of the misunderstanding between the parties over the issue of taking over possession, defaults have occurred on account of which the Financer has auctioned both the flats at a price lesser than the agreement value.
2. Today the situation is that the Appellant-Developer has lost both the flats and is under orders passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT)to refund amount of consideration and taxes paid by allottee alongwith interest.
3. On the contrary, the allottee, who is awaiting receipt of the said amount as per directions of the Appellate Tribunal may have to shell out the entire portion for the purpose of satisfying the balance liability of the Financer. In result, both the parties above found themselves in such a position that they have received absolutely nothing out of the entire transaction in question. However, Mr Shah and Mr. Shukla would submit that earnest efforts are being made for settling the dispute.
Megha 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2024 19:22:07 :::908& 909_sast_12606_2024 &_12603_fc.docx
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent -allottee submit that an approach would be made to the Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. for the purpose of settling the loan account so that dispute between the parties can be amicably resolved. This Court expects the Financer/Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. to extend due co-operation to the parties for settling the amount due by removing all the unnecessary charges and by charging a reasonable interest. In order to enable the parties to explore the possibility of settlement, hearing of the appeal is deferred till 24 June 2024.
5. Till the next date of hearing, the order of the Appellate Tribunal shall not be executed.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Megha 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2024 19:22:07 :::