Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
M/S. Harsh Constructions & Anr. vs Vinay Kumar G. Bajpai on 22 December, 2023 cites

Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 17 March, 2004

9.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellants reiterated the grounds of appeal and argued that the State Commission failed to consider the Demand Letters sent by the Appellants to Respondent, which were left unanswered, indicating non-payment of the amounts due. He also emphasized that the Complainant did not provide any Rejoinder or Affidavit of Evidence to rebut the demands made by the Appellants. The construction resumed after High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation and Clause 8 of the agreement covered delays in such scenarios. The learned State Commission, in the impugned order, erroneously directed the Appellants to pay interest at 18% per annum on the amount deposited by the Respondent from 01.01.2013 till realization. This contradicted the orders of NCDRC and Hon'ble Apex Court Judgments starting from Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh. Further, the State Commission also erred in granting compensation of Rs. 2 Lacs to the Respondents for purported mental agony and harassment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 1208 - Full Document

Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan And Aleya ... vs Dlf Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known ... on 24 August, 2020

10.    The learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the facts in the complaint emphasizing that the delay and construction stoppage during the period 2006-2012 was allegedly due to pending PILs and Writ Petitions in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Respondent contended that no evidence was furnished by the Appellants to substantiate that the construction could not proceed due to stay orders. Consequently, there has been an unreasonable delay of about 14 years by the Appellants. The Respondent urged that the present Appeal be dismissed, and the Appellants be directed to either provide possession of the said flat along with interest for the delay or, alternatively, be directed to compensate the Respondent based on the current market rate of the flat along with interest. He relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes (P) Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512 in support of this argument. He further argued that the Complainant has paid the entire amount in compliance with the directions passed by the State Commission. However, the Appellants failed to handover the possession till date. The Appellants were directed to handover possession of the flat within two months of receipt of the pending payment. The Respondent has invested her hard-earned money and is suffering agony and harassment. He forcefully pleaded for dismissal of the Appeal directing the Appellants for providing possession of the said flat along with interest for the delay caused and further compensate for the agony caused. He has also stated that the flats have now been completed and the petitioner is ready to take possession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 470 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Kolkata West International City Pvt Ltd vs Devasis Rudra on 25 March, 2019

16.    It is clear that there was significant delay in handing over possession of the flat. The complainant cannot be expected to wait indefinitely, as she has already paid a substantial amount with the expectation of timely possession. In several cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has asserted the right of buyers to receive fair delay compensation when developers unduly and unreasonably delay possession as per the Agreement. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 SC, decided on 25.03.2019 has observed that:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 221 - Full Document

Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. vs D.S. Dhanda Etc. Etc. on 10 May, 2019

"We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts.  The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit.  We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 143 - H Gupta - Full Document
1