Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

habilitation component, against the original area in occupation of the Members.

12. On 1st June, 2012, the MCGM issued an IOD on the basis of 1 FSI that too while restricting the same to the extent of 0.75 till the PRC in words was submitted.

On 2nd June, 2012, the Plaintiff forwarded a copy of the IOD dated 1 st June, 2012 to Defendant No. 28.

(viii) The Members of the Society will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of their respective premises to the Developer subject to:

(a) IOD of 1.5 FSI issued;

(b) Permissible TDR loaded and requisite certificate provided;

(c) Specific and clear certificate of the Project Architect, that all the Permanent Alternate Accommodations are fully covered under the IOD;

(d) Certificate issued by the Project Architect about loading of TDR and feasibility of construction of Permanent Alternate Accommodations;

39. It is submitted on behalf of the Defendants that the Plaintiff was fully aware on 15th April, 2010, that the area of the plot under consideration was 4474 sq.mtrs.

KPP 30 NMS-859 of 2013 The Plaintiff had suppressed this fact from the Municipal Corporation and has obtained an IOD dated 1st June,2012, where the Corporation had considered the area of the plot to be 5474 sq.mtrs. It is submitted that the Plaintiff got the IOD issued only with a view to show that within 16 months i.e. extended time period it had secured IOD. However, the said IOD dated 1 st June, 2012, was restricted to only 75 per cent of the plot area and that too without loading TDR. Thus, the members of Defendant No. 28 were made to believe by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had got full IOD as per the Development Agreement dated 6 th March, 2011, read with the first Supplemental Agreement dated 16 th December, 2011. It is submitted that the Plaintiff was under a legal obligation to submit the property card in words along with the application seeking IOD in respect of the plot under consideration.

It is therefore submitted on behalf of the non-co-operating members that the Plaintiff was aware of the discrepancy of the area much prior to entering into the Development Agreement on 6th March, 2011. The Plaintiff had suppressed these facts from the MCGM and had obtained an IOD dated 1 st June, 2012, from the Corporation on the basis of the area of the plot being 5474 sq.mtrs. It is submitted that the Plaintiff got the IOD issued only with a view to show that within 16 months i.e. extended time period it had secured the IOD. However, the said IOD dated 1 st June, 2012, was restricted only to 75 per cent of the plot area and that too without loading TDR. The plan submitted by the Plaintiff to the Corporation dated 17 th December, 2012, bears a note that the plot had been surveyed on 15 th April, 2010 and is found to have an area of 4474 sq.mtrs.