Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Puneet Gupta vs Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 22 January, 2020 cites

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

Counsel for the complainants contended that relocation to plot no.254 was never asked for by the complainants and, on the other hand, possession of plot no.507 referred to above was not offered to them by the stipulated date i.e. 03.07.2010 or thereafter, for want of development activities at the project site, and also development in the project wherein the complainants were relocated, was also not complete, as such, they are entitled to refund of the amount paid. Whereas, on the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainants were relocated to plot no.254 on their request having been made by them, yet, when, possession thereof was offered to them vide letter dated 27.06.2014  (Annexure C-8) followed by reminder email dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure C-11 colly.), even then they failed to take over the same, and have now filed this complaint seeking refund of the amount paid.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 1050 - Full Document

Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. vs Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 5 July, 2018

Furthermore, even if, for the sake of arguments (though not holding so), if we presume that the possession so offered in the year 2014 was a genuine offer, even then there is a delay of about four years, from the promised date i.e. from 03.07.2010. In those circumstances also, the complainants are entitled to get refund of amount paid, in view of settled law that non-delivery of possession of plots/units in a developed project by the promised date, is a material violation on the part of a builder and in those circumstances, the allottee is well within his/her right to seek refund of the amount paid. It was also so said by the Hon'ble National Commission in Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 61 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

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

The above view taken is further supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019. In the present case also, since there has been an inordinate delay in the matter, as such, we are of the considered opinion that if we order refund of the amount paid alongwith suitable interest that will meet the ends of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 350 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Ansal Housing And Construction Ltd. vs Tulika Gupta & Anr. on 24 August, 2017

As far as objection raised by the opposite parties, to the effect that this complaint is time barred, it may be stated here that the same is devoid of merit, in view of observations made by the Hon'ble National Commission in a case titled as Ansal Housing And Construction Ltd. Vs.  Tulika Gupta & Anr., First Appeal No. 545 of 2017, decided on 24 Aug 2017, to the effect that till the time either the possession is given to the allottees or the amount paid by them is refunded, there will be a continuing cause of action to file a consumer complaint. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale ... vs Vemparala Srikant & Anr. on 16 August, 2017

An argument was also raised by Counsel for the opposite parties to the effect that opposite parties no.2 and 3 have been wrongly impleaded as parties, in their personal capacity. We do not agree with the objection raised. It may be stated here that it is not the proven case of the opposite parties that the above-named persons are not their Directors/Officers. As such, it is held that these persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the Company and will be jointly and severally liable alongwith the Company, for all the acts done. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale Services Ltd. & Ors, Vs. Vemparala Srikant & Anr., First Appeal No. 797 of 2017, decided on 16 Aug 2017.  Objection taken in this regard is rejected.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 40 - Full Document
1