FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATIONS

V-3/11 DLF Phase- III Gurugram-122001|Phone: 0124-4014318; 0124 4990107

25.08.2021

Dear Members,

 

The Hon’ble H-REAT court in the recent case of-

Emaar MGF Land Ltd.

Vs.

1. Ms. Simmi Sikka & Ors.

Held that the project in question required registration as no completion certificate was issued to the promoter by the competent authority on or before the commencement of the Act and therefore the project in question falls within the purview of the ‘ongoing project’. As a result of abandoning the claim of compensation, the learned Authority had every jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint filed by the complainant. The provisions of the Act being retroactive in nature, will apply to the present project. We also do not find any error in the findings of the learned Authority with respect to the determination of the due date of the offer of possession of the retail space of the shop and the rate of interest. The complainant cannot claim compound interest @ 24% for delay in delivery of possession as prayed for in the cross appeal bearing no.64 of 2018. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Authority does not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality calling for any interference by this Tribunal. Resultantly, both the appeals being without any merit are hereby dismissed.

All the best,

God bless u all

President,

Federation of Residents Welfare Association

V 3/11 DLF PHASE III

GURUGRAM-122002

HARYANA,

0124 4-14318,0124 4990107,08860332404.

PRESIDENT

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

 

 

Hon'ble Hreat Court Judgement.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION

V-3/11 DLF Phase- III Gurugram-122001/Phone: 0124-4014318; 0124-4990107

24.08.2021

 

Dear Members,

 

The Hon’ble H-REAT court in the recent case of-

Amit Gupta

Vs.

Athena Infrastructure Ltd

Held that the approach of the Ld. Authority is erroneous. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and others vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (now known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.) and others 2020(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 544 has laid down as under: - “The developer in the present case has undertaken to provide a service in the nature of developing residential flats with certain amenities and remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. Consequently, we are unable to subscribe to the view of the NCDRC that flat purchasers who obtained possession or executed Deeds of Conveyance have lost their right to make a claim for compensation for the delayed handing over of the flats.” In view of the aforesaid ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the allottees will not lose their right to claim interest for delayed possession merely on the ground that the conveyance deed had already been executed. The execution of the conveyance deed cannot extinguish the cause of action which had already accrued to the allottee due to delay in delivery of possession. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Authority is not sustainable. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 19.12.2019 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the Ld. Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law.

All the best,

God bless u all

President,

Federation of Residents Welfare Association

V 3/11 DLF PHASE III

GURUGRAM-122002

HARYANA,

0124 4-14318,0124 4990107,08860332404.

PRESIDENT

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

 

 

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION

V-3/11 DLF Phase- III Gurugram-122001|                    Phone: 0124-4014318; 0124-4990107

 

24.08.2021

 Dear Members,

 

The Hon’ble H-REAT court in the recent case of-

Ravinder Pal Singh

Versus

M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd.& Ors.

Held that in view of our aforesaid discussion the appellant does not deserve the relief of refund. He has already been granted the interest for delayed possession by the learned Authority in the impugned order. Thus, keeping in view our aforesaid discussion, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned Authority which can warrant any interference in the impugned order by this Tribunal. Consequently, the appellant/allottee is not entitled for the claim of refund and the same has been rightly declined by the learned Authority. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. However, nobody can be forced or compelled to purchase the house, but as the appellant himself is at default in making the payment as per the payment schedule and if he still intends to withdraw from the project out of his own which will amount to the breach of the contract on his part, in that eventuality he will be entitled for refund of the amount paid by him after forfeiting 10% of the basic sale consideration, which will be considered to be the reasonable earnest money amount and after deducting the statutory dues already deposited with the government.

All the best,

God bless u all

President,

Federation of Residents Welfare Association

V 3/11 DLF PHASE III

GURUGRAM-122002

HARYANA,

0124 4-14318,0124 4990107,08860332404.

PRESIDENT

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

 

 

 

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION

V-3/11 DLF Phase- III Gurugram-122001|Phone: 0124-4014318; 0124-4990107

 

23.08.2021

Dear Members,

The Hon’ble H-REAT court in the recent case of-

M/s Tarang Infrastructure Ltd.

Vs.

Tarang Flats Owners Assocation

held that Ld. counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has already moved an application to the Ld. Authority with list of the allottees showing the amount deposited by them. A separate bank account has also been opened. He contended that the respondent-Association is yet to confirm the name of the allottees mentioned in the list and the amount deposited by them. Ld. counsel for the appellant has further contended that the respondent-Association has also not confirmed the actual number of members of the respondent-Association as per their bye-laws. Ld. counsel for the respondent has undertaken to supply this information to the appellant-promoter in the proceedings pending before the Ld. Authority. However, he pointed out that though the appellant-promoter has supplied the list of the allottees showing the amount deposited by them, but the appellant promoter has not so far deposited even the admitted amount in the separate bank account stated to be opened for this purpose. The respondent-Association is at liberty to raise this grievance before the Ld. Authority and it is expected that the Ld. Authority will certainly take care of this grievance of the respondent-Association in accordance with law.  In view of the aforesaid clarifications, nothing remains to be adjudicated upon by this Tribunal. Consequently, the present appeal stands disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations.

All the best,

God bless u all

President,

Federation of Residents Welfare Association

V 3/11 DLF PHASE III

GURUGRAM-122002

HARYANA,

0124 4-14318,0124 4990107,08860332404.

PRESIDENT

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

 

 

 

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION

                   V-3/11 DLF Phase- III Gurugram-122001|                 

 Phone: 0124-4014318; 0124-4990107

23.08.2021

Dear Members,

 

The Hon’ble H-REAT court in the recent case of-

Haryana Urban Development Authority (now Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran)

Versus

Vijay Kumar s/o Shri Roshan Lal Garg,

Held that the development works of the project will only be complete when the possession of the plot is rightly delivered to the allottee. In this case, though originally the possession of the plot was delivered to the respondent/allottee in May, 2015 but the officials of the appellant committed blunder and wrongly delivered the possession of the land even not belonging to it. It is an admitted fact that the neighbour of the said plot had filed a civil suit and obtained the restraint order due to which the respondent/allottee could not raise the construction over the plot, the possession of which was delivered to the respondent/allottee wrongly. The appellant got demarcated the plots as a result of which the lay out plan of this project 6 of 2019 was revised which was finally approved on 28.07.2017 by the Town and Country Planning Department. Once it is found that the revised plan was sanctioned on 28.07.2017, then it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to allege that the project was complete in the year 2015. The possession of the plot delivered to the respondent/allottee in the year 2015, was totally illegal and wrong and even that land did not belong to the appellant.

 

All the best,

God bless u all

President,

Federation of Residents Welfare Association

V 3/11 DLF PHASE III

GURUGRAM-122002

HARYANA,

0124 4-14318,0124 4990107,08860332404.

 

PRESIDENT

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

 

 

 

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION

V-3/11 DLF Phase- III Gurugram-122001| Phone: 0124-4014318; 0124-4990107

 

                                                                                                                                         21.08.2021

Dear Members,

 

The Hon’ble H-REAT court in the recent case of-

Haryana Urban Development Authority (now Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran)

Versus

 

Vijay Kumar s/o Shri Roshan Lal Garg,

Held that the development works of the project will only be complete when the possession of the plot is rightly delivered to the allottee. In this case, though originally the possession of the plot was delivered to the respondent/allottee in May, 2015 but the officials of the appellant committed blunder and wrongly delivered the possession of the land even not belonging to it. It is an admitted fact that the neighbour of the said plot had filed a civil suit and obtained the restraint order due to which the respondent/allottee could not raise the construction over the plot, the possession of which was delivered to the respondent/allottee wrongly. The appellant got demarcated the plots as a result of which the lay out plan of this project 6 of 2019 was revised which was finally approved on 28.07.2017 by the Town and Country Planning Department. Once it is found that the revised plan was sanctioned on 28.07.2017, then it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to allege that the project was complete in the year 2015. The possession of the plot delivered to the respondent/allottee in the year 2015, was totally illegal and wrong and even that land did not belong to the appellant.

 

All the best,

God bless u all

President,

Federation of Residents Welfare Association

V 3/11 DLF PHASE III

GURUGRAM-122002

HARYANA,

0124 4-14318,0124 4990107,08860332404.

KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI 

PRESIDENT

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

 

 

 

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION

V-3/11 DLF Phase- III Gurugram-122001|Phone: 0124-4014318; 0124-4990107

 

11.08.2021

 

Dear Members,

 

The Hon’ble H-REAT court in the recent case of-

Ocus Skyscrapers Realty Limited

Versus

Shri Bhagat Singh Negi & Anr.

Held that there is also no material on record to show that the learned Authority had issued any notice to the parties for the next date of hearing i.e. 19.11.2020. So, there was no basis for initiation of the ex-parte proceedings against the appellant. It is an admitted case that reply of the appellant to the amended complaint was not obtained and the impugned ex parte order dated 19.11.2020 was passed without any reply to the amended complaint from the side of the appellant/promoter. It is further an admitted fact that in the amended complaint the reliefs sought by the respondents/allottees have been entirely changed. In the initial complaint there was relief for refund of the amount but in the amended complaint this relief was deleted and totally different reliefs were sought. Due to such a substitution of the claims in the amended complaint, the interest of justice required that adequate opportunity to contest the amended complaint should have been granted to the appellant/promoter. But, instead of giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to put forward its case to the amended claims, the impugned order has been passed at the back of the appellant. Thus, the procedure adopted by the learned Authority is unwarranted and violative of the principles of natural justice. The appellant has been deprived of the due opportunity of being heard. So, the impugned order passed by the learned Authority, due to the aforesaid legal infirmities, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

 

All the best,

God bless u all

President,

Federation of Residents Welfare Association

V 3/11 DLF PHASE III

GURUGRAM-122002

HARYANA,

0124 4-14318,0124 4990107,08860332404.

PRESIDENT

FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION