Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.51 seconds)

Rajesh Makanwal vs Omaxe Limited on 12 October, 2015

Even the possession of the unit, in question, was to be offered by the Opposite Parties uptill 24.10.2009 and complete possession after obtaining of completion certificate from the competent authority after completion of the development works had never been offered to him and, as such, there is a delay of approximately 5 years and 10 months. The Forum rightly held that the complainant cannot be forced to wait for the delivery of possession for an unlimited period. Even the Opposite Parties kept the hard earned money of the complainant with them and earning interest on the same and when he requested for refund of the amount, they failed to refund the same, which amounted to deficiency in service and indulged into unfair trade practice. So, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment cited by the Counsel for the appellant Subhash Chander Mahajan & Anr. Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and, as such, the interest, compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the Forum is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Puneet Malhotra vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd., on 29 January, 2015

In fact, in another case, CC/144/2011, Subhash Chander Mahajan Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., another Bench of this Commission directed the opposite party to pay interest @ 18% per annum, besides compensation amounting to Rs.7.00 lacs and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2.00 lacs, in a case where refund was sought from the opposite party Parsvnath Developers Ltd. on account of its failure to complete the construction within the agreed time frame. A Special Leave Petition filed by the opposite party before the Honble Supreme Court vide Diary No.25053/2014 was withdrawn by the said opposite party on 12.09.2014, after arguing the matter for a while.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 98 - Full Document

Jasleen Viswanathan & Anr. vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. on 20 January, 2016

He also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Consumer Case No. 293 of 2014- Sunil Joshan  Vs. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.; First Appeal No. 61 of 20150 Unitech Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Syed Hussain Tahir Kazmi & Anr.; Consumer Case No. 144 of 2011- Subhash Chander Mahajan & Anr.  Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and  Consumer Case No. 347 of 2014- Swarn Talwar & 2 Ors.  Vs. Unitech Ltd.; in which interest@ 18% p.a. was allowed on deposited amount till refund.  These cases are not applicable to the cases in hand because in those cases, complainant prayed for refund of amount and while allowing refund, interest @ 18% was allowed whereas in the cases in hand, complainants are claiming possession of allotted flat and State Commission has directed opposite party to hand over possession.  In such circumstances, in the light of aforesaid judgment of Apex Court, complainants are not entitled to get interest as prayed on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till handing over possession.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 7 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Kavit Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate ... on 12 February, 2015

In CC/144/2011, Subhash Chander Mahajan Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., another Bench of this Commission directed the opposite party to pay interest @ 18% per annum, besides compensation amounting to Rs.7.00 lacs and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2.00 lacs, in a case where refund was sought from the opposite party Parsvnath Developers Ltd. on account of its failure to complete the construction within the agreed time frame.  A Special Leave Petition filed by the opposite party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Diary No.25053/2014 was withdrawn by the said opposite party on 12.09.2014, after arguing the matter for a while.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 1050 - Full Document

Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr. vs Kolkata West International City Pvt. ... on 19 February, 2024

Counsel for appellants also argued that the interest awarded by the State Commission was required to be enhanced due to the delay in delivery of the possession of the unit based upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority (supra) and this Commission's judgement in Subhash Chander Mahajan (supra).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next