Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Amit Bhatia & Anr. vs Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 20 May, 2016
4. The issues involved in these complaints were directly involved in CC No.535 of 2015, Ravi Marwah & Mrs. Aarty Marwah Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. and CC No.536 of 2015 Mr. Amit Bhatia & Mrs. Bhawna Bhatia Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., decided on 20.5.2016 and the following view was taken by this Commission:-
Puneet Malhotra vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd., on 29 January, 2015
6. In our view, the interest claimed by the flat buyers in such a case does not represent only the interest on the capital borrowed or contributed by them but also includes compensation on account of appreciation in the land value and increase in the cost of construction in the meanwhile. As noted by us in CC No.232 of 2014, Puneet Malhotra Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. decided on 29-01-2015, there has been steep appreciation in the market value of the land and cost of construction of the residential flats in Greater Noida in last about 7-10 years and consequently the complainants cannot hope to get a comparable flat at the same price which the opposite party had agreed to charge from them. In fact it would be difficult to get a similar accommodation, even at the agreed price plus simple interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. Therefore, the payment of interest to the flat buyers in such a case is not only on account of loss of income by way of interest but also on account of loss of the opportunity which the complainants had to acquire a residential flat at a particular price.
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 17 March, 2004
However, in the present case, considering the provisions contained in section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act when read with in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra), it cannot be said that the claim for payment of more than Rs.1 crore is deliberately exaggerated or inflated in order to bring the matter for pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and, therefore, amounts to abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the aforesaid decision does not help the opposite party.
Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital & Ors on 20 September, 2000
Reliance has also placed by the learned counsel for the complainants upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 668], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court interalia observed as under:-
Dewan Ashwani & 7 Ors. vs Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 11 February, 2016
6. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the plea of jurisdiction which she has advanced before this Commission was not considered by this Commission in Dewan Ashwani & Ors. (supra).
Section 11 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Smt. Nandita Bose vs Ratanlal Nahata on 4 August, 1987
6. The learned counsel for the OP on the other hand refers to Nandita Bose Vs. Ratanlal Nahata [Civil Appeal No.1544 of 1987] decided on 4.8.1987 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court interalia observed and held as under:-
1