Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.60 seconds)
Monte Vista Residence Welfare ... vs Marathon Realty Ltd. & 3 Ors. on 27 August, 2020 cites

Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Kohinoor Ctnl Infrastructure Company ... on 4 August, 2017

48.    The transfer of the land and maintenance to the society of the residents is a statutory requirement under MOFA and a time frame is also given in MOFA.  However, it is a general trend that builder/developer try to either obtain additional FSI or on any other reason, try to extend the period of development.  In the present case also, the conversion of the parking spaces at basement originally meant for resident of the building are being provided to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for public parking in lieu of additional FSI.  Obviously, this additional FSI still benefit the builder/developer and the project life will extent to 5-6 years more.  The area will not be free from the nuisance value of the construction activity and the generated pollution.  These concerns have also been raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. Vs. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited & anr. (supra). However, so long as the rule permits revision of plan due to additional FSI or any other reasons, the normal provisions of MOFA or similar provisions in other State Acts will continue to suffer to the detriment of the consumers.  It is for the Central Government and the State Governments to counter these possibilities by amending their respective Acts.  Once a project is complete, it should only be allowed to avail additional FSI or any such incentive being available during or after the completion, only at the time when its redevelopment is taken after some 30-50 years with consent of the residents and not before that, otherwise the people living in these projects will face the hardships due to continuous construction activity as well as continuing pollution for a long time.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Sikka Papers Ltd vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 May, 2009

51.    It is true that the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant for mental harassment and inconvenience. I agree with the assertion of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that this type of compensation for mental agony cannot be provided to a corporate entity as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (supra). Clearly the complainant No.1 is a corporate entity and not a natural person. Thus, the order of the State Commission in respect of the award of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment to the complainant cannot be sustained. However, it is seen that the opposite parties have definitely adopted unfair trade practice in respect of the disclosures made to the members of the complainant. In the brochure, disclosure was made that the recreation ground will be on the ground floor, however, later it was shifted it to the podium level. This is clearly an unfair trade practice and the complainant society is entitled to get compensation for this unfair trade practice. Accordingly, a compensation of rupees 7.5 lakhs is awarded to the complainant No.1 association to be paid by the opposite parties 1-3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 182 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Rajiv Kochar vs R.S. Sharma And Anr. on 10 August, 2000

44.    The complainants in their appeal have raised the issue that the State Commission has not passed any order for completing all the amenities/facilities by the opposite parties.  The State Commission has also not given any time frame for implementation of the order particularly for formation of the society for residents.  The question of conveyance deed has also been raised by the complainants. However, before taking the issues raised by the complainant, it is seen that the appeal filed by the complainant being FA No.530 of 2016 has been filed with a delay of 67 days.  The complainant has stated that the delay has happened in discussing the impugned judgment with all the members of the association and then to take a decision for filing of the appeal.  The delay is not deliberate or intentional.  Moreover, when the cross appeal is being considered by this Commission, the appeal of the complainant should also be considered.  Learned counsel for the opposite party has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Kochar Vs. R.S.Sharma and another, (2002) 9 SCC 624, (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not accepted the delay in a cross appeal.  However, it is seen that in the case mentioned by the learned counsel for the opposite party, the delay in filing the cross appeal was 560 days, whereas in the present case the delay is only 67 days. Moreover, no prejudice will be caused to the other party if both the cross appeals are decided on merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next