Back
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM
J. Nagi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Shankar – Respondent
ORDER
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—The present First Appeal, filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is brought forth by J Nagi Reddy, (henceforth referred to as the “Appellant” or “Opposite Party No.3”). This Appeal challenges the Order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, Karnataka, (henceforth termed as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 145 of 2009, wherein the complaint filed by the Complainants (Respondents No. 1 & 2 herein) was allowed.
2. Concurrently, the Appellant, J Nagi Reddy filed an Appeal Execution against the Execution Order dated 31.08.2018 in Execution Petition No. 18/2014 in CC No. 145/2009 filed by the Complainants/Respondents herein before the State Commission, seeking issue of a Recovery Certificate for submission to Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore for the recovery of the specified amount.
3. Brief facts of the case as per the Complainant are that, the Complainants/Respondent No.1&2 entered into a Construction Agreement 07.12.2005 with the Appellant/OP3 to purchase a flat for a total cost of Rs.29,50,000/-. They paid Rs.4,35,000/- initially and obtained Rs.21,6
(1) Delay – It is undisputed that there has been delay in the handing over possession of the Flat as per the Agreement and the OP had cancelled the allotment to the Complainant.(2) Question of Law – ....
(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....
Evidence filed has to be looked into.
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
Delay in allotment of flat – Challenge to bar of pecuniary jurisdiction has to be raised at the first instance & cannot be permitted at the appellate stage.
One-sided contractual terms - Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.
A balanced and reasonable order passed by State Commission is not amenable to interference in revision.
Execution of sale deed contingent on complete payment; refund denied as possession had been taken.
IMPORANT POINT Paper Possession – without obtaining completion certificate, offering possession is not a valid/legal possession and is only a paper-possession.
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
