Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 600 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing Pioneer Urban Land And Infrastructure ... vs Govindan Raghavan on 2 April, 2019

Veera Srivastava vs Parsvnath Development on 7 March, 2022

In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, there was a delay of almost two years in obtaining an occupancy certificate after the date stipulated in the ABA. As a consequence, there was a failure to provide possession of the flat to the purchaser within a reasonable period. This Court dwelt on the terms of the ABA under which the builder was entitled to charge interest at 18 per cent per annum for the delay in payment of instalments by the purchaser. On the other hand, the failure to provide possession on the part of the developer was subject to a grace period of twelve months followed by a termination notice of ninety days and a further period of ninety days to the developer to effect a refund. Adverting to these clauses, the court noted:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nikhil Kumar Garg vs Castle Vista Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 31 January, 2023

"Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd.  Vs. Govindan Raghavan "6.7. A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prabhat Kumar & Anr. vs M/S. Bptp Limited & Anr. on 1 January, 2024

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. Vs. Trevor D'Lima & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 442 laid down that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid with compensation and in Bangalore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711 held that when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with reasonable interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund, which was reiterated in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, (supra).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Gupta & Anr. vs M/S. Bptp Limited & Anr. on 1 January, 2024

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. Vs. Trevor D'Lima & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 442 laid down that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid with compensation and in Bangalore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711 held that when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with reasonable interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund, which was reiterated in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, (supra).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Poonam Kandhawe vs M/S. Bptp Limited & Anr. on 1 January, 2024

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. Vs. Trevor D'Lima & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 442 laid down that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid with compensation and in Bangalore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711 held that when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with reasonable interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund, which was reiterated in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, (supra).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next