Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing R V Prasannakumaar vs Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd on 11 February, 2019

Veera Srivastava vs Parsvnath Development on 7 March, 2022

In  R V Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt Ltd., 2019 SCC On Line SC 224, under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandeep Gupta vs Inperial Housing Ventures Pvt Ltd on 4 July, 2022

In  R. V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC on Line SC 224, under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Rajan Sodhi, M/S Ethnic Kraft vs M/S Parsvnath Developers Ltd. on 21 October, 2020

In R.V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd. under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement CC 987/2016 RAJAN SODHI VS. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Page 22 of 27 provided compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uc Mittal And Another vs Gaur Sons India Ltd. on 20 October, 2020

In R.V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd. under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded (CC-14/2010) U.C. MITTAL & ORS. VERSUS M/S GAUR SONS INDIA PVT. LTD. PAGE 13 OF 16 compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed: 9. We are in agreement with the view of the NCDRC that the rate which has been stipulated by the developer, of compensation at the rate of 3 per sq. ft. per month does not provide just or reasonable recompense to a flat buyer who has invested money and has not been handed over possession as on the stipulated date of 31 January 2014. To take a simple illustration, a flat buyer with an agreement of a flat admeasuring a 1000 sq. ft. would receive, under the agreement, not more than Rs. 3000/- per month. This in a city such as Bangalore does not provide just or adequate compensation. The jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award just compensation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot in the circumstances be constrained by the terms of the agreement. The agreement in its view is one sided and does not provide sufficient recompense to the flat purchasers. The Court observed that there was a delay of two years and hence the award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent was reasonable and justified. 28.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kavinder Madhra vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd. on 7 December, 2020

In R.V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd. under the terms of the ABA, possession of the CC 140/2013 KAVINDER MADHRA VS. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Page 22 of 27 flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Simmi Suri vs Parsavnath Developers on 7 December, 2020

In R.V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd. under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Usman vs M/S Earth Infrastructure Ltd on 7 July, 2022

In  R. V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC on Line SC 224, under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pawan Singh vs M/S S.V.P. Builders (India) Ltd on 8 July, 2022

In  R. V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC on Line SC 224, under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Urmila Kumari Anand vs G D A on 12 April, 2022

In  R. V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC on Line SC 224, under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next