Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Onkar Singh vs Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd. on 21 November, 2024 cites

Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993

20. Now coming to the objection taken by the opposite parties to the effect that since the complainants never approached them for appointment of an Adjudicating Officer for redressal of their grievance and as such, this complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone, it may be stated here that this objection also deserves to be rejected out- rightly on the ground that the complainants are well within their right, to file this consumer complaint in view of settled principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, when there is delay in delivery of the units/plots, the consumer complaint is maintainable. As such, objection taken by the opposite parties, in this regard stands rejected. Relief granted:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 1040 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Emaar Mgf Land Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishan Chander Chandna on 29 September, 2014

15. It may be stated here, it is settled law that onus to prove the stage and status of construction and development work at the project site and that all the permissions/approvals have been obtained in respect thereof, is on the builder/developer. It was so said by the Hon'ble National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. In the present case, not an iota of evidence has been placed on record, as to at what stage, the development and construction stage has reached. In case, the development/construction had completed, as claimed by the opposite parties, in their reply, then it was for the Opposite Parties, 9 which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development/construction activities, are being undertaken but they failed to do so. As already established on record, that some of the permissions were received by the opposite parties post the alleged possession letter, which has been proved to be fabricated documents. Under these circumstances, the Opposite Parties have attracted an adverse inference in the matter to hold that the Opposite Parties are not serious in completing the project and on the other hand are utilizing the amount paid by the complainants and other similar located allottees, without providing them anything. Thus, in our considered view, the complainants are entitled to get possession of their unit, alongwith delayed compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 167 - Full Document

Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Mrs. Raj Mehta on 24 September, 2004

In our view, even if at some point of time, the complainants withheld some amount of sale consideration after seeing that the Opposite Parties are not in a position to deliver possession of the said unit and there will be an inordinate delay, then also they were legally right to do so, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Raj Mehta, Appeal (Civil) 5882 of 2002, decided on 24.09.2004, wherein it was held that if the builder is at fault in not delivering possession of the units/plots by the stipulated date, it cannot expect the allottee(s) to go on paying installments to it. Similar view had also been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission, in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E. Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments was rightly stopped by the purchaser. Objection taken in this regard by the opposite party also stands rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 60 - S N Variava - Full Document
1   2 Next