Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.56 seconds)
Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area ... vs Sunita Madhusudan Dhote on 31 December, 2025 cites

Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007

19. We are of the considered view that since the complaints relate to same scheme, there is apparent deficiency of service as the construction of the flats could not be completed and possession thereof could not be handed over within the stipulated period despite payments being largely made as demanded by OP-1 & OP-2. The complainants had paid the amounts hoping for delivery of possession in a timely manner. The stand taken by OP-1 & OP-2 that construction could not be completed for reasons beyond their control and NOC was not issued by Nagpur Municipal Corporation for want of Environmental clearance, does not absolve OP-1 & 2 of the responsibility of timely delivery of flats. MHADA ought to have taken necessary steps for completion of project in a time bound manner with a grace period of 06 months and cannot be left unaccounted for delays in completing the construction. Hon‟ble Apex FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 36 of 40 Court in Banglore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438 has held that a home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of the flat for an indefinite period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 276 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

M/S. Fortune Infrastructure (Now Known ... vs Trevor Dlima on 12 March, 2018

19. We are of the considered view that since the complaints relate to same scheme, there is apparent deficiency of service as the construction of the flats could not be completed and possession thereof could not be handed over within the stipulated period despite payments being largely made as demanded by OP-1 & OP-2. The complainants had paid the amounts hoping for delivery of possession in a timely manner. The stand taken by OP-1 & OP-2 that construction could not be completed for reasons beyond their control and NOC was not issued by Nagpur Municipal Corporation for want of Environmental clearance, does not absolve OP-1 & 2 of the responsibility of timely delivery of flats. MHADA ought to have taken necessary steps for completion of project in a time bound manner with a grace period of 06 months and cannot be left unaccounted for delays in completing the construction. Hon‟ble Apex FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 36 of 40 Court in Banglore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438 has held that a home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of the flat for an indefinite period.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 103 - N V Ramana - Full Document

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

19. We are of the considered view that since the complaints relate to same scheme, there is apparent deficiency of service as the construction of the flats could not be completed and possession thereof could not be handed over within the stipulated period despite payments being largely made as demanded by OP-1 & OP-2. The complainants had paid the amounts hoping for delivery of possession in a timely manner. The stand taken by OP-1 & OP-2 that construction could not be completed for reasons beyond their control and NOC was not issued by Nagpur Municipal Corporation for want of Environmental clearance, does not absolve OP-1 & 2 of the responsibility of timely delivery of flats. MHADA ought to have taken necessary steps for completion of project in a time bound manner with a grace period of 06 months and cannot be left unaccounted for delays in completing the construction. Hon‟ble Apex FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 36 of 40 Court in Banglore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438 has held that a home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of the flat for an indefinite period.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 221 - Full Document

Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. vs M/S. Vipul Ltd. on 11 May, 2015

"14. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the case papers, we are of the considered view that the NCDRC having taken note of the relevant aspects including the factum of delay and the fact that petitioner had opted for refund of money deposited, rightly held that as a home buyer, petitioner cannot be compelled to take possession of the flat after such long time, and as such ordered for refund of entire amount deposited with interest of 9% p.a. Placing reliance on the law laid down by this Court in 'Bangalore Development Authority & Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711', wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dealing with the question of grant of relief to a consumer in cases of delay of delivery of possession held that when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid with reasonable interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund. The Court summarized the general principles and in particular para 10(f) observed as follows-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area ... vs Manohar Burde on 27 July, 2022

18. The grant of interest in cases for refund of amount, @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposit till date of refund stands crystalized by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4383 of 2025 Chief Officer Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Ors. v. Manohar Burde (supra) as referred to above. We may further notice that in said case, compensation of Rs.10 lacs was reduced to Rs.7.5 lacs by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case observing that the amount had already been deposited by MHADA.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Swarn Talwar & 2 Ors. vs Unitech Ltd. on 14 August, 2015

In support of the contentions, reliance is further placed upon Shri Manohar Ganpatrao Burde v. The Chief Officer; Nagpur Housing Society and Area Development Board and two others, decided on 20/02/2017 by the Nagpur Circuit Bench State Commission Maharashtra in CC/16/52; Swarn Talwar and 2 others v. Unitech Ltd. in CC/347/2014 decided by Hon'ble National Commission by order dated 14/08/2015; M/s Utopia Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Shahin Bi Mulla in Appeal No. FA/1227/2014 decided on 01/04/2015 by the Hon'ble National Commission; Sundarjas FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 20 of 40 Kanyalal Bhatija & Ors. v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors with Prahalad Hiranand Advani & Ors. v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors., 1989 (3) SCC 396; Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors. with State of Rajasthan v. Kishanlal Banshal & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 480; Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65; Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, II (2002) CPJ 22 SC; Fortune Infrastructure (Now known as M/s Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. v. V. Trevor D'lima & Ors., II (2018) CPJ 1 (SC); Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. v. V. Vipul Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1131 and Venkataraman Krishnamurty & Anr. v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 182.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 11 - Cited by 117 - Full Document

M/S. Utopia Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Shahin Bi Mulla on 1 April, 2015

In support of the contentions, reliance is further placed upon Shri Manohar Ganpatrao Burde v. The Chief Officer; Nagpur Housing Society and Area Development Board and two others, decided on 20/02/2017 by the Nagpur Circuit Bench State Commission Maharashtra in CC/16/52; Swarn Talwar and 2 others v. Unitech Ltd. in CC/347/2014 decided by Hon'ble National Commission by order dated 14/08/2015; M/s Utopia Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Shahin Bi Mulla in Appeal No. FA/1227/2014 decided on 01/04/2015 by the Hon'ble National Commission; Sundarjas FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 20 of 40 Kanyalal Bhatija & Ors. v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors with Prahalad Hiranand Advani & Ors. v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors., 1989 (3) SCC 396; Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors. with State of Rajasthan v. Kishanlal Banshal & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 480; Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65; Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, II (2002) CPJ 22 SC; Fortune Infrastructure (Now known as M/s Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. v. V. Trevor D'lima & Ors., II (2018) CPJ 1 (SC); Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. v. V. Vipul Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1131 and Venkataraman Krishnamurty & Anr. v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 182.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next