AI Overview...
-
Booking Fees Not Amount to Sale - The courts have clarified that paying booking fees or deposits does not constitute a transfer of ownership or a sale. For instance, in Mita Majumder & Another vs Sree Sree Partha Sarathi Developer & Another - Consumer State, the court found that the developer's failure to provide requisite completion certificates and comply with regulations justified refund claims, emphasizing that mere receipt of booking amounts does not amount to sale or transfer of property rights.
-
Payment of Booking Amount and Refunds - The initial booking amount (e.g., Rs. 1,00,000 on 19.10.2015) paid during agreement for sale does not imply a completed sale. Refunds are warranted if the sale is not completed due to deficiencies or non-compliance, as seen in Mita Majumder & Another vs Sree Sree Partha Sarathi Developer & Another - Consumer State.
-
Court Fees and Sale Agreements - Several sources (Umapada Jati VS Manas Jati - Calcutta, Makhan Lal VS Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City - Rajasthan) highlight that court fees are payable based on the consideration amount mentioned in sale deeds or valuation, but paying booking fees alone does not trigger sale-related court fees. The distinction is that court fees are linked to the actual sale transaction, not mere booking or earnest money.
-
Sale Deeds and Transfer of Ownership - The execution of sale deeds is crucial for transferring ownership. Delays, unilateral actions, or failure to hand over possession (e.g., Prabha Mahale (Dr. ) VS VGP Agro Farm (P) Ltd. - Consumer) mean the sale is incomplete, and booking fees or deposits do not amount to sale until formal transfer occurs.
-
Sale Fees and Taxation - Taxation and stamp duty are applicable only upon execution of sale deeds, not at the booking or agreement stage (KCHAMA RANI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Makhan Lal VS Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City - Rajasthan). The mere act of booking or paying initial amounts does not constitute a sale for taxation purposes.
-
Impact of Non-Compliance and Deficiencies - Courts have held that deficiencies in compliance, such as failure to provide completion certificates or delays, justify refunds and do not convert booking fees into sale amounts (Mita Majumder & Another vs Sree Sree Partha Sarathi Developer & Another - Consumer State, Prabha Mahale (Dr. ) VS VGP Agro Farm (P) Ltd. - Consumer).
-
Summary: Booking fees or deposits paid during the agreement for sale are not equivalent to sale amounts. They do not trigger transfer of ownership or sale-related liabilities such as court fees or taxation until the sale deed is executed. Non-compliance or deficiencies in sale procedures further reinforce that initial payments remain separate from the actual sale transaction.
References: - Mita Majumder & Another vs Sree Sree Partha Sarathi Developer & Another - Consumer State - McCann Erickson (India) Pvt. Ltd. VS Kamini Saigal - Delhi - Prabha Mahale (Dr. ) VS VGP Agro Farm (P) Ltd. - Consumer - KCHAMA RANI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad - Makhan Lal VS Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City - Rajasthan - Umapada Jati VS Manas Jati - Calcutta
Search Results for "Booking Fees Not Amount to Sale"
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6670 • India - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Soma Bhattacharjee, PRESIDING MEMBER, Samiksha Bhattacharya, MEMBER
(Paras relating to the agreement for sale and obligations). ... comply with building regulations and did not provide the requisite Completion Certificate. ... The court found the OPs deficient in service as per the agreement terms and held that refund was warranted because the OPs did not ... Receipt Issue DateBooking amount1,00,00019.10.201530% amount paid during execution of Agreement for Sale14,41.22018.11.2015Service Tax on the above amount53,943....
2013 0 Supreme(Del) 1343 • India - Delhi
P.K.BHASIN
be joint and several as they had acted as the agents of defendant no.1 - Plaintiff had admitted Rs. 9,00,000/- was the principal amount ... - Trial Judge has not assigned any reason for not awarding any interest - Even pendente lite and future interest has also been denied ... Decreed in the favour of plaintiff - A sum was awarded without any interest - Appeal by defendant nos. 1 and 2 - Defendant no.3 did not ... Similarly, if defendant no.3 had been booking slots for advertisement of products of other....
• India - Consumer
RUMNITA MITTAL, J.D.KAPOOR
execution of sale deed had no value—Delay and deficiency in not handing over possession within stipulated period entitled complainant ... the certificate showed that purchaser of plots was present at the time of sale deed nor had she signed the sale deed—Unilateral ... 1996—Possession of houses was promised to be given by September 1997—Complainant asked for refund of her money when possession was not ... On payment of the required amount in her A/c. ... But for the refusal of the comp....
2016 0 Supreme(All) 60 • India - Allahabad
DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANANT KUMAR
been taken – As such Scheme was not in operation – Mere not taking of the insurance policy for a particular period cannot be said ... Accident Insurance Scheme – Claim of – Compensation – Aforesaid claim denied – On date of demise of her husband, insurance cover had not ... to be conclusive of the issue that the Scheme was not in operation – Policy coverage was contemplated from 1.11.2003 to 31.3.2005 ... not liable to tax on the sale under the Act.” ... fund had been generated by incr....
2011 0 Supreme(MP) 453 • India - Madhya Pradesh
SHANTANU KEMKAR, ABHAY M.NAIK
Debts Act - Section 22, Section 25, Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Act, 1993 - The court upheld the deposit of the balance 75% amount ... The auction purchasers deposited 25% of the bid amount immediately and the balance 75% within 15 days with the Decree Holder/Bank ... Finding of the Court: The court found that the deposit of the balance 75% amount with the Decree Holder/Bank within ... ... The aforesaid Clause nowhere requires the purchaser to deposit the poundage fees along with 75% balance bid amou....
2016 0 Supreme(Cal) 809 • India - Calcutta
SOUMEN SEN
amount mentioned in deeds under challenge is set aside. ... Issues: Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the consideration amount mentioned in deeds under ... The plaintiff has the freedom to state the amount he values the relief sought for by him. ... The trial court on an objection raised by the defendants as to the valuation and payment of court-fees allowed the said objection held that the plaintiff would have to pay ad valorem court fees on the basis of....
• India - Current Civil Cases
SUNITA AGARWAL
by the Court below for the Purpose of grant of relief sought by him for forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 31,40,000/- the entire sale ... a consequential relief- The Court below erred in not looking into this aspect of the matter-Impugned order set aside-Revision allowed ... been decided against defendant-revisionist and it was held that Court-fee paid of amount off 200/- was sufficient- Submission of ... As he is not seeking any relief of damages and only sought relief that, he should b....
1978 0 Supreme(Raj) 2 • India - Rajasthan
P.D.KUDAL
not under Section 38 of the Act, which provides for Court-fees in suits for cancellation of decrees or instruments of sale. ... COURT FEES - SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF DECREE AND SALE-DEED - COURT FEES PAYABLE - RAJASTHAN COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT ... not for cancellation of the decree or instrument of sale, but for a declaration that the decree and sale-deed were void ab initio ... If the plaintiff was a pa....
2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1447 • India - Kerala
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
Taxation - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Rule 13 - Authorization - Attachment and sale of movable/immovable property ... blanket authorization - Authorization under Rule 13 has to be made "from time to time", which clearly mandates that any particular sale ... A further interest at the rate of 4% for the amount of Rs.1,91,20,000/- (Rupees one crore, ninety one lakhs and twenty thousand) would be just compensation for the deprivation of such amount caused to the 2nd respondent by reason of the irregular sale. .....
2016 0 Supreme(Raj) 408 • India - Rajasthan
ARUN BHANSALI
for payment of court fees and has directed that in case, the same is not paid within a period of 30 days, the suit shall stand dismissed ... permanent and mandatory injunction – Suit was filed based on the facts that pursuant to the agreement to sale executed petitioners ... was not justified – Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has granted insufficient time to the petitioner ... However, looking to the amount of valuation/court fees re....
Filter by Legal Phrase
