Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.09 seconds)
Abhay Kumar Srivastava vs Parswanath Devlopers Ltd on 28 July, 2022 cites

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

We are of the view that the complainants are entitled to get monthly damage according to the area. The area of the said unit is less than 175 m² and keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble NCDRC in the case of Priyanka Mittal (supra), the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month from 26.11.2011 till the actual date of delivery of possession and the order shall be complied with, within 60 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum on this amount.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 7 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs Abhishek Khanna on 11 January, 2021

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited Vs. Abhishek  Khanna & Ors., (supra), has held where the development makes an alternate offer of allotment of apartment, the allottees are however not bound to accept the same because of inordinate delay in completing the construction of the towers or units were allotted to them and if the Occupation Certificate is not available even as on date, clearly amounts to deficiency of service. So it is clear that without occupation certificate, offer of delivery of possession is no offer in the eye of law. We shall also the difference between completion certificate and occupancy certificate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 189 - I Malhotra - Full Document

R V Prasannakumaar vs Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd on 11 February, 2019

In  R. V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCCon 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:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Pioneer Urban Land And Infrastructure ... vs Govindan Raghavan on 2 April, 2019

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:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 350 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next