Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

HULUVADI G.RAMESH, K.B.SANGANNANAVAR, M.DIVYASHREE
Mridula Manu – Appellant
Versus
LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Sri. B.K. Sampathkumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.1:Sri. P.P. Hegde, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.2:Sri. Jai M. Patil, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - [12000439650014] - [12000439650015] - [12000439650016] - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the question of maintainability and jurisdiction of a complaint under CPA 2019 and RERA when both avenues are available?

What is the remedy and relief granted to the Complainants for delay in possession and deficiency in service by OP.1, including refunds, interest, and penalties?

What are the implications for the tripartite loan arrangement with OP.2/BANK and the cancellation of the tripartite agreement in light of the complaint?

ORDER

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, President.—This complaint is filed U/s.47 of CPA 2019 by the Complainant No.1 & 2/husband & wife (Complainants) against OP.1/developer & OP.2/bank (Ops) and sought for directions as:

1. Direct the OP.1 to refund Rs.46,32,902/- paid by the Complainants along with interest at 2% above MCLR of SBI commencing from 30.10.2017 till the date of receipt of the amount by the Complainants.

2. Direct the OP.1 to refund Rs.40,61,639/- paid by the Complainants to OP.2 towards bank loan pre-EMIs and EMIs and other charges in respect of loan a/c no.PHR056102916548 along with interest at 2% above MCLR of SBI commencing from 25.01.2018 till the date of receipt of the amount by the Complainants.

3. Direct OP.1 to repay the balance outstanding loan amount availed from OP.2 by the Complainants as per actual in respect of said loan a/c including the principal and interest components, directly to the said bank.

4. Direct OP.1 to refund to the Complainants along with interest at 2% above MCLR of SBI, any further sums paid by the Complainants to OP.2 towards the said bank loan account from this date onwards.

5. Direct OP.2 not to make any demand or request to the Complainant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

HULUVADI G.RAMESH, K.B.SANGANNANAVAR, M.DIVYASHREEMridula Manu – AppellantVersusLGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

What is the question of maintainability and jurisdiction of a complaint under CPA 2019 and RERA when both avenues are available?

What is the remedy and relief granted to the Complainants for delay in possession and deficiency in service by OP.1, including refunds, interest, and penalties?

What are the implications for the tripartite loan arrangement with OP.2/BANK and the cancellation of the tripartite agreement in light of the complaint?

Cases Referred (6)

HULUVADI G.RAMESH, K.B.SANGANNANAVAR, M.DIVYASHREE
Mridula Manu – Appellant
Versus
LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent