Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.52 seconds)Meerut Development Authority vs Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. on 11 April, 2014
In any case, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12. In such a case, the buyer has a recurrent cause of action for filing a complaint for non-delivery of possession of the flat. This is more so in a case where the seller does not refuse to deliver possession to the buyer. In the case before us, at no stage, the opposite party refused to deliver possession to the complainant, he himself being in default on account of not even having started construction of the floors in which flats were sold to the complainants. Therefore, it would be difficult for us to say that the complaint in such a case would be barred by limitation.
Section 4 in The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973
1