Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.70 seconds)Jasleen Viswanathan & Anr. vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. on 20 January, 2016
In Nalin Bhargava vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc and other related civil appeals on 13 July, 2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 17 March, 2004
We are informed that in spite of there being no stay, to payment of interest beyond 12% and in spite of clarification given by this Court's order (reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65), the amounts have still not been paid. We feel that for the lapse Appellants must pay interest at the rate of 15% from 17th March, 2004 till payment. Appellants shall also pay costs fixed at Rs.500/- in each case to the Legal Aid Society of the Supreme Court. The Appellants must recover the amount paid towards costs personally from the officer/s, who were responsible for not paying even after clarification by this Court. We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter as the order has been passed taking special features of the case into account. The Forum/Commission will follow the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra) in future cases. The Appeals are disposed off in above terms. There will be no order as to costs."
Section 2 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Darsh Kumar, Etc. Etc on 28 July, 2004
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development ..... vs. Darsh Kumar, Etc., Civil Appeal no 5796 of 2002 decided on 28 July, 2004 has held ;
The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963
Section 17 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Vikrant Kumar Tongad vs Union Of India on 7 January, 2022
The construction of project was also slowed down due to restriction of extraction of ground water for construction purposes, which restriction was imposed by the Hon'ble Ntional Green Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "NGT") in an application bearing OA no.59 of 2012 titled Vikrant Kumar Tongad vs. Union of India & ors. wherein the Tribunal has directed to all developers in Noida and Greater Noida not to extract any ground water for the construction purposes vide its order dated 11.1.2013. due to such order, the Developers in Noida and Greatoer Noida were even barred from removing ground water which was seeped into the basement area due to excavation for laying foundation of buildings. The development/construction work in the said project was also affected by such order.