Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.21 seconds)Section 12 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
Section 2 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. vs Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 5 July, 2018
Thus, it transpires that the opposite parties were not competent to sell plots or flats and to collect money from the complainants and other prospective buyers, in April 2011, as far as the present project is concerned. Since not even a single document has been placed on record by the opposite parties to counter the allegations leveled by the complainants, it can very well be said that the project in question was launched and units therein were sold to the innocent buyers, in complete violation of the mandatory requirements as per Law, just with a view to grab money from them. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounted to grave deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that we cannot make the complainants to wait for an indefinite period, in the matter. It is well settled law that non-delivery of possession of plots/units in a developed project by the promised date or if there is no agreement within a reasonable period say two to three years from the date of booking, is a material violation on the part of a builder and in those circumstances, the allottee is well within his/her right to seek refund of the amount paid. It was also so said by the Hon'ble National Commission in Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018.
Pioneer Urban Land And Infrastructure ... vs Govindan Raghavan on 2 April, 2019
The above view taken is further supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019. In the present case also, since there has been an inordinate delay in the matter, as such, we are of the considered opinion that if we order refund of the amount paid alongwith suitable interest that will meet the ends of justice.
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 also 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 to 4 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 proven case of the opposite parties that the above-named persons are not their Directors. Had opposite party no.4 resigned from her duties, the opposite parties could have placed on record her resignation letter, but it has not so been done. As such, it is held that these persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the Company and will be jointly and severally liable alongwith the Company, for all the acts done. 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.