Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (2.42 seconds)
Documents citing Nahalchand Laloochand P.Ltd vs Panchali Co-Op.Hng.Sty.Ltd on 31 August, 2010

Perumbhuduru Manohar vs The State Of Telangana on 29 August, 2025

9. This issue has been conclusively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [2010 (9) SCC 536]. In paragraph 60 of the said judgment, interpreting the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), the Court held that stilt parking spaces constitute part of the common areas. The Court further observed that the promoter has no legal right to sell any portion of a building which is not a 'flat,' and that the entire land and building must be conveyed to the society or association of flat purchasers. The only right that remains with the promoter is to dispose of unsold flats. Accordingly, the promoter cannot claim ownership over stilt parking spaces, as they are neither flats nor appurtenant to any particular flat.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N Tukaramji - Full Document

Narender Gupta vs Dlf Limited & 8 Ors. on 20 January, 2020

34.     It is an admitted fact that the Complainant has paid an amount of ₹21,06,446/- towards car parking charges in addition to the amount paid for super area.  Keeping in view that Section 3 of Haryana Apartment Owners Act, 1983 specifies car parking to be  part of the common area whereas the super area as defined in the Agreement entered into between the parties excludes car parking and the Developer having not specified car parking in the common area, though included under the Haryana Apartment Owners Act, 1983 leads to the conclusion that the Developer cannot in law realize any amount from the purchasers towards car parking.  The Developer himself is liable to bear the burnt of not disclosing the area of car parking in the common areas and, therefore, cannot demand proportionate amount of the area of car parking from the Complainant.  The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Nahalchand Laloochand (supra) would squarely be applicable and the Developer does not have any right under law to ask additional demand towards car parking.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Chairman, State Bank Of India vs M.J.James on 16 November, 2021

The repugnancy will 1 Nahalchand Laloochand Private Ltd. v. Panchali Coop. Housing Society Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 536 2 Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 584 3 Part XII, Rules of Construction Laid Down by Statute, Sections 199 and 200 at page 517, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, Indian Reprint, Sixth Edition. Civil Appeal No.8223 of 2009 Page 13 of 35 arise when the definition meaning does not agree with the subject in the context. Repugnancy is not indicated and does not arise in the context of Clause 22(ix)(a) of Chapter VIII of the Service Code by mere absence of article ‘the’ in Clause 22(ix)(a) before the word ‘bank’, as held in the impugned judgment. This is too weak and feeble a reason to discard and over-ride the defined meaning which is the general norm, and not an exception that has to be justified. Deficiency of ‘the’ does not disclose abandonment of the express definition of ‘bank’ vide clause 2(e) of the Service Code. Absurdity or even ambiguity is not obvious or even palpable. The word ‘bank’ in Clause 22(ix)(a) can be validly and effectively interpreted as per the definition clause as referring to the Bank of Cochin Ltd., and not any or other bank(s).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 28 - S Khanna - Full Document

Brig. J.S. Dharmadheeran vs Army Welfare Housing Organization ... on 6 April, 2023

"The learned counsel for the OP states that as far as row houses are concerned, no separate charges are payable for the parking.  As regards the parking for the other allottees, he has drawn my attention to the technical brochure which clearly shows that the cost of car parking in case of apartments will be extra and the allotments of the same will be done later.  The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the cost of car parking cannot be charged extra from the allottees of the apartments.  However, neither the agreement between the parties provides for free car parking nor my attention has been drawn to any statutory provision requiring the builder to provide free car parking of this nature of the allottees.  If an apartment owner is not interested in taking allotment of the said parking at the cost demanded by the OP, it is open to him not to accept the allotment.  But, such a car parking cannot be provided free of cost.   The learned counsel for the applicants refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited Vs. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Limited (2010) 9 SCC 536, decided on 31.08.2010.  I have perused the said judgment.  Nowhere does the aforesaid judgment say that the car parking will be provided free of cost to the apartment owner.   The learned counsel for the complainants states that the complainants are also disputing the preferential location charges.  I have perused the guidelines for filling up of options which are Annexure-B to the reply filed by the OP.  As per the guidelines to the option letter for specific floor and parking space, the allottees, while exercising option with respect to row houses were to keep in mind that ground floor row houses will carry a preferential location charge of Rs.1.5 lacs extra.  In view of the aforesaid stipulation, any allottee who has opted for a ground floor row houses is required to pay the aforesaid preferential location charges.  The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the row houses can be allotted only to disabled persons.  I however, find no such stipulation in the guidelines.  In this regard, guidelines only provide that request for preferential allotment of floor from the allottees suffering from disability would be considered only in respect of those who are covered by the provisions of the liberalized pension conditions in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Defense letter dated 02.11.1995 and should submit the mandatory medical/pension documents alongwith their options. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Marathon Next Gen Realty Limited And Anr vs The Competent Authority District ... on 18 April, 2015

16 wp-11802-13.sxw 16 The Supreme Court Judgment in Nihaalchand Laloochand Vs. Pancholi Co-op. Hsg. Society [2010(9) SCC 536] referring to right of promoters and builders to sale parking areas, even if any, not dealt with by the Competent Authority while passing the deemed conveyance. The area and/or parking area of respective Society and/or members, excluding the other area and the right of use of remaining area by the promoter and/or builder, therefore, unless made clear by agreed terms and/or by final determination and/or adjudication, the impugned order so passed in the present facts and circumstances, would cause injustice and hardship. In future it will create complications in transferring the right, title and interest of the respective flats/apartments and the related areas, as per the existing agreement. All the parties are bound by the agreement between the parties.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Marathon Next Gen Realty Limited And Anr vs The Competent Authority District ... on 18 April, 2015

16 wp-11802-13.sxw 16 The Supreme Court Judgment in Nihaalchand Laloochand Vs. Pancholi Co-op. Hsg. Society [2010(9) SCC 536] referring to right of promoters and builders to sale parking areas, even if any, not dealt with by the Competent Authority while passing the deemed conveyance. The area and/or parking area of respective Society and/or members, excluding the other area and the right of use of remaining area by the promoter and/or builder, therefore, unless made clear by agreed terms and/or by final determination and/or adjudication, the impugned order so passed in the present facts and circumstances, would cause injustice and hardship. In future it will create complications in transferring the right, title and interest of the respective flats/apartments and the related areas, as per the existing agreement. All the parties are bound by the agreement between the parties.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next