Back
C. VISWANATH, RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
Jaiprakash Associates Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deepti Kumar – Respondent
ORDER
Heard Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent-1, Mr. Devendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, for respondent-2, Mr. Mayank Singh, Advocate, for respondent-3. Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate, as an intervener, on legal issue.
2. Jaiprakash Associates Limited (opposite party-2) has filed above appeal from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, dated 24.10.2018, passed in CC/347/2016, partly allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.10000/- and compensation of Rs.20000/- and directing the appellant to return Rs.4778280/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of actual payment, firstly to Axis Bank Limited (opposite party-3), who had advanced loan to the complainant and secondly the balance amount to the complainant.
3. The office has reported 89 days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed IA/3673/2019, for condonation of delay. Cause shown is sufficient. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. Deepti Kumar (respondent-1) filed CC/347/2016 for directing Jaypee Infratech Limited and Jaipraka
(1) Refund of money - The home buyer is entitled to claim refund of money with interest from the appellant under Section-19 (4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.(2) Possessio....
(1) Consumer Protection Act and RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other – They are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy.(2) For interest payable on amount deposi....
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
(1) Justified Withholding of Payments – An allottee is not necessarily “at fault” for stopping installments if it is evident that the builder is nowhere near completing the project by the committed d....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that even a promoter who has not received any consideration from an allottee is liable to give a refund with interest under Section 18 of the Re....
One-sided contractual terms - Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.
(1) Possession - If the developer fails to deliver possession of the allotted plot/flat within the stipulated time, the allottee is under no obligation to accept an alternate plot.(2) Interest - When....
Refund rights of consumers upheld despite payment issues, highlighting supplier's persistent obligation to deliver services as contracted under consumer protection principles.
No Occupancy Certificate – The Occupation Certificate is not available even as on date, which clearly amounts to deficiency of service.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
