Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)The Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled, Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963
The Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972.
The Karnataka Prohibition Act, 1961
Sneh Jain vs Dlf Universal Limited on 3 January, 2020
18. In the present case, as already seen, the Expert submitting his report to the Complainant had himself acknowledged that the definition of the terms "Super Area and Apartment Area" was not available according to the Statute, but he did not consider the definition as given in the Annexure II to the Brochure, which was applicable in this case, as the Agreement between the parties flowed from the material disclosed in the said Brochure. Consequently, not much reliance can be placed on the report of the Complainant's claimed Expert A.S.M.H.A. Laskar. On the other hand, and also for the same reasons as noted by this Commission in accepting the report of the Independent Agency M/s. Garg A. Associates in the case of "Capital Green Flat Buyers Association and others Vs. DLF Universal Limited and another (2020 SCC Online NCDRC 3)", would appear to be more convincing. At any rate, during the course of hearing, we suggested to the parties to have another physical inspection of the Apartment to be got conducted by an independent Expert subject to sharing of expenses by both sides. The Opposite Party from its side readily agreed to such suggestion, but Complainants did not show any inclination to go in for that course of action. We are, therefore, now inclined to place reliance on the said report of the independent Agency "M/s. Garg A. Associates" to hold that the Opposite Party has been able to establish that super area of the Apartment has actually increased to 6043 sq.ft. in totality and the Complainants are, therefore, liable to pay the additional charges for this area on the original rate agreed upon by the parties.
Nahalchand Laloochand P.Ltd vs Panchali Co-Op.Hng.Sty.Ltd on 31 August, 2010
But subsequently in "Civil Appeal No.3223 of 2020 - DLF Limited Vs. Narender Gupta and others" decided on 28.10.2021, it was held by the Apex Court that the decision in "Nahalchand Laloochand" (Supra) was applicable only in the context of "Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), 1963", which was not applicable to the State of Haryana. Undisputedly, the Project involved in the present Complaint i.e. "Magnolia" is located in Gurgaon and is, therefore, governed by the prevalent law as applicable to the State of Haryana.
Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan And Aleya ... vs Dlf Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known ... on 24 August, 2020
23. Admittedly, possession of the Apartment was to be delivered to them in May 2009 (verified from ABA) but the possession was actually offered only on 28.11.2012. Consequently, the Complainants are entitled to delay compensation @ 6% p.a. on the payments made by them from the date of each respective payment, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rehman Khan (Supra), since in the present case, the Complainants are willing to accept possession, and do not seek any refund of the sale consideration price paid by them.
Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. vs Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 25 April, 2008
68. The decision of this Court in Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. V. Panchali Coop. Housing Society Limited turned on the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963, as explained in the subsequent decision of this Court in DLF Ltd. V.Manmohan Lowe. The demand of parking charges is in terms of the ABA and hence it is not possible to accede to the submission that there was a deficiency of service under this head."