Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank(2007) 6 SCC 71
Coordinate Bench of Supreme court held that when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with reasonable Interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund.
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan Civil Appeal No. 12238 OF 2018 If Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, the Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession, flat Purchaser entitled to the refund of the entire amount deposited with Interest
1. 2019 -Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 SC, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as hereunder: “.....It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years in beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund.
This is the latest direction issued by RERA UP/Gurugram Directing developers can't use 70% of the money collected for buyers to reply the bank loan, the amount is for completion of construction only
LATEST RERA NEWS
National commission New Delhi in consumer caseno. 2923 of 2017 titled Visheshsood & Another. versus Raheja developers limited dated 15.11.2019 held that the Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely as the possession of the unit has not been handed over so far. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Complainants are entitled for refund of the principal amount with reasonable interest.
Supreme Court of India Pioneer Urban Land And ... vs Govindan Raghavan on 2 April, 2019CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018
The Appellant Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. In these circumstances, the Respondent Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest
Cearly, not obtaining occupancy certificate is the deficiency on the part of the OP/appellant.( builder ) Therefore, it is necessary to direct the OP to obtain the Occupancy Certificate in a time bound manner. In this respect, the order of the State Commission is perfectly valid so far as it relates to directing the OP to obtain Occupancy Certificate within 90 days. Once the Occupancy Certificate is obtained the title has to be conveyed to the Society within four months and in any case, non-compliance with the conditions to obtain Occupancy Certificate speaks volumes about the deficiency of services on the part of the appellants
Supreme Court of India in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, II (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows: “6.7.
A terms of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreementconstitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder. 7. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent-Flat Purchaser. The Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. &Anr. Vs. Union of India &Ors . - 2019 SCC Online SC 1005, has held that remedies given to the allottees of the flats/apartments are concurrent and such allottees are in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA, as well as trigger the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
One sided agreement
DLF SOUTHERN HOMES PVT. LTD V/S M/S ANNABELL BUILDERS DEVELOPERS” the apex court has held that delay in possession of flat amounts to deficiency in service and builder is liable to make payment to the home buyers on cost of flat for the period of delay in delivery in addition to meager amount of compensation as mentioned in apartment buyer agreement. The court said the flat purchaser suffer agony and harassment as a result of default of developer. Flat purchaser make legitimate assessment in regard to future course of their lives based on flat which has been purchased being available being for use and occupation. The legitimate expectation are belied when developer fails to fulfill contractual obligation.
We love our customers, so feel free to visit during normal business hours.
Today | Closed |
Copyright ©2022 All Rights Reserved passion by Rera Advocates