Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Lavasa Corporation Ltd. Hicon ... Vs Girish Vassan Panjwani and Others On 7 August, 2018

    Uploaded by

    Dushyanth M
    The document discusses three legal cases related to real estate development projects. In the first case, the court held that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) based on the terms of the agreements and purpose of the relevant Act. In the second case, the court ordered the developer to refund the full deposit amount plus 9% interest to the respondent within 4 weeks due to medical hardship. In the third case, the court ruled that complainants were entitled to a refund of their payments with 10% annual interest and Rs. 25,000 in litigation costs due to construction delays and lack of occupancy permits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lavasa Corporation Ltd. Hicon ... Vs Girish Vassan Panjwani and Others On 7 August, 2018

    Uploaded by

    Dushyanth M
    43 views2 pages
    The document discusses three legal cases related to real estate development projects. In the first case, the court held that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) based on the terms of the agreements and purpose of the relevant Act. In the second case, the court ordered the developer to refund the full deposit amount plus 9% interest to the respondent within 4 weeks due to medical hardship. In the third case, the court ruled that complainants were entitled to a refund of their payments with 10% annual interest and Rs. 25,000 in litigation costs due to construction delays and lack of occupancy permits.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    rera

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses three legal cases related to real estate development projects. In the first case, the court held that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) based on the terms of the agreements and purpose of the relevant Act. In the second case, the court ordered the developer to refund the full deposit amount plus 9% interest to the respondent within 4 weeks due to medical hardship. In the third case, the court ruled that complainants were entitled to a refund of their payments with 10% annual interest and Rs. 25,000 in litigation costs due to construction delays and lack of occupancy permits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views2 pages

    Lavasa Corporation Ltd. Hicon ... Vs Girish Vassan Panjwani and Others On 7 August, 2018

    Uploaded by

    Dushyanth M
    The document discusses three legal cases related to real estate development projects. In the first case, the court held that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) based on the terms of the agreements and purpose of the relevant Act. In the second case, the court ordered the developer to refund the full deposit amount plus 9% interest to the respondent within 4 weeks due to medical hardship. In the third case, the court ruled that complainants were entitled to a refund of their payments with 10% annual interest and Rs. 25,000 in litigation costs due to construction delays and lack of occupancy permits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Lavasa Corporation Ltd. Hicon ...

    vs Girish Vassan Panjwani And Others on 7


    August, 2018

    84. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and the terms and conditions of
    the 'Agreements', having regard to the entire purport and object of the Act, it has to be held that, the
    dispute in the present case definitely falls within the jurisdiction of RERA. The interplay of all the
    provisions contained in the Act, coupled with the real purport of the 'Agreement of Lease', leads to no
    other inference, but to Lavasa.doc hold that, the complaints filed by the Respondents before the
    'Adjudicating Officer', under Section 18 of the Act, are definitely maintainable and the 'Adjudicating
    Officer' is having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide those complaints. The mechanical
    interpretation given by the 'Adjudicating Officer' to the provisions of the Act, merely focusing on the
    nomenclature of the 'Agreement', was clearly defeating the object of the Act and hence, it was rightly
    set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.

    (vi) In Civil Appeal No.9139 of 2019, we were informed by the learned counsel that the Respondent
    had made a request for refund of the amount deposited since his wife was critical and required a lung
    transplant, to meet the huge expenses of hospitalisation. However, the Developer failed to refund the
    amount. During the pendency of proceedings, the wife has since expired on 08.12.2020, and there are
    pending hospital bills to the tune of Rs.50 to 60 lakhs to be cleared.

    We direct the Developer to refund the entire amount deposited by this respondent alongwith Interest @
    9% S.I. p.a. within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this judgment. The failure to refund the amount
    within 4 weeks will  make the Developer liable for payment of default interest @ 12% S.I. p.a. till the
    payment is made.

    Subodh Pawar vs M/S. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. ... on 24 September, 2018

    It would thus be seen that in these cases, the last date for offering possession of the flats expired on
    23.01.2017, the construction is not complete even today, and even today, there is no certainty as to
    when the OPs will be able to apply for and obtain the requisite Occupancy Certificate.   The
    complainants therefore, cannot be compelled to keep on waiting for the apartments, and are entitled to
    seek refund of their money with suitable compensation.

    18.    The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions taken from the complainant in CC
    No.1998/2016 present in the court and taken from the other complainants in CC No.1998/2016 & CC
    No.2000/2016 on telephone that they are restricting their claim in these complaints to the refund of the
    principal amount paid by them along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per
    annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund and the cost of litigation. 

    19.    The complaints are therefore, disposed of with the following directions:

    (i)      The OPs shall refund the entire principal amount received from the complainants alongwith
    compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the
    date of refund.

    (ii)      The OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation in each complaint.

    (iii)     The aforesaid payment shall be made within three months from today

    You might also like