Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.34 seconds)Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016
Section 79 in Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
M/S Imperia Structures Ltd. vs Anil Patni And Anr. Etc. on 2 November, 2020
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
argued that suit is not barred by Section 79 of The Real Estate
(Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (in short RERA Act) as it
is the case of defendants itself that they received completion
certificate, so RERA Act is not applicable, whereas the case of
Imperia Structures Limited vs Anil Patni & Anr., (2020) 10
SCC 783 has not dealt with cases where jurisdiction is barred in
view of Section 3(2)(c) of RERA Act which says that RERA Act
is not applicable when completion certificate is already received.
Article 24 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs Hemant Vithal Kamat on 9 August, 2021
17. For non compliance of mandate of Order VII Rule 2A of CPC
for claim of interest, plaint is not liable to be rejected and only in
case of decree of suit, the facet of quantum of interest needs to be
adjudicated appropriately, as per law. Plaint finds clear averment of
alleged incapacitation of defendant no. 1 in delivery of possession
of aforesaid subject plot to plaintiff due to technical reasons,
elicited above, in the application preferred by defendant no. 1 in
earlier suit for mandatory injunction before Ld. Civil Judge in year
2017 itself and resting premise only thereon plaintiff has averred of
cause of action having arisen in his favour seeking recovery of
CS (Comm.) No. 606/2020 Pardeep Garg vs M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 33 of 47
money paid to plaintiff with interest and cost as buyer cannot be
made to wait for several years for delivery of possession after
making all payments called for; whereas plaintiff waited for about
12 years for possession of subject plot, which he never obtained
from defendants despite several demands. In the fact of the matter,
in the backdrop of the averments in the plaint, elicited above, no
case is made out for rejection of the plaint being bereft of cause of
action. Also in the former suit, above said, mandatory injunction
was claimed, which was without valuing the suit either for specific
performance or for recovery of money and payment of court fees
thereon. As per law laid in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala
vs Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors (supra), the adjudication of the
plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues
and decision in the previous suit, which decision in former suit
should be by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; so such a
plea will be beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC;
whereas also the court of Ld. Civil Judge was not a court
competent to try the subsequent suit i.e., the present suit. Also in
the fact of the matter, since there is no material placed on record
that the project in question was an ongoing project, it cannot be
said at present that RERA Act will be applicable and bar of Section
79 of RERA Act to be operative in the fact of matter."