Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.74 seconds)Section 2 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
Dlf Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Through Its ... vs Sushila Devi on 26 February, 2019
What relief can be granted to a consumer, for delay in offering possession of the residential units/plots, fell for determination before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. vs Sushila Devi, 2019 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2285-2330 of 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 of 2019), decided on 26 February, wherein, under similar circumstances, interest @9% p.a. on the deposited amount, for the period of delay in offering possession, was confirmed. It is therefore held that the complainants are entitled to get interest @9% p.a., on the deposited amount, towards price of the said plot, for the period of delay i.e. from 02.12.2016 till the possession is actually delivered complete in all respects, after obtaining completion certificate in respect of the project in question, from the competent Authorities.
Lata Construction & Ors vs Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah And ... on 12 August, 1999
As far as objection taken to the effect that the complaint filed is beyond limitation, it may be stated here that since it is an admitted fact that possession of the plot in question has not been delivered even by the date when this complaint had been filed before this Commission, as such, objection taken with regard to limitation is not sustainable in the eyes of law, especially in view of principle of law laid down in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), wherein it was held that when possession of the residential units/plots is not offered, there is a continuing cause of action, in favour of the allottee/buyer. It is also held that once an objection with regard to limitation has been taken by the opposite parties, at the same time, taking contrary objection to the effect that time was not the essence of contract is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
M/S. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale ... vs Vemparala Srikant & Anr. on 16 August, 2017
An objection has also been taken by the opposite parties to the effect that opposite parties no.2 and 3 i.e. Directors of the Company have been wrongly impleaded as parties, in their personal capacity. We do not agree with the objection raised. It may be stated here that it is not the case of the opposite parties that the above-named persons are not their Directors. As such, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the Company. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale Services Ltd. & Ors, Vs. Vemparala Srikant & Anr., First Appeal No. 797 of 2017, decided on 16 Aug 2017. Objection taken in this regard is rejected.