MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY Maharashtra RERA Holds Spenta Enclave Liable For Delay, Orders Interest To Homebuyers Case – Anil Kishinchand Rajani & Anr Versus Spenta Enclave Pvt. Ltd A/W 1 other Citation – Complaint No. CC006000000193129 A/W 1 other While allowing the complaints of Two homebuyers, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority...
MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Maharashtra RERA Holds Spenta Enclave Liable For Delay, Orders Interest To Homebuyers
Case – Anil Kishinchand Rajani & Anr Versus Spenta Enclave Pvt. Ltd A/W 1 other
Citation – Complaint No. CC006000000193129 A/W 1 other
While allowing the complaints of Two homebuyers, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Manoj Saunik (Chairperson) directed Spenta Enclave to pay interest to the homebuyers for the delay in handing over possession of the flat.
Maharashtra RERA Directs Godrej Properties To Refund Booking Amount Paid By Homebuyer
Case – Sofia Bernard Swamy Versus Godrej Properties Limited & anr
Citation – Complaint No. CC005000000106820
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I) has directed Godrej Properties Limited.to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer after deducting 2% of the total consideration.
Due to personal reasons the homebuyer failed to pay the consideration for the flat she purchased. Consequently, the builder forfeited the amount prompting the homebuyer to approach the authority.
Case – Sharad Agrawal Versus Pune House & Area Development Board, MHADA
Citation – Complaint No. CC005000000106546
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member) has directed the Pune Housing and Area Development Board (PHADB) to rectify the structural defects in the project within 30 days.
HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Case – Preeti Yadav & anr Vs. M/s AKME Projects Limited
Citation – Complaint no: 4246 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s AKME Projects Ltd to refund the homebuyer due to a delay of over 10 years in handing over possession.
The homebuyer was expected to receive possession of the flat by 18 May 2014. However, authority found that as of 2024 the builder has still not obtained the occupation certificate from the relevant authority.
Case – Shri. Sohan Lal Kainth Versus M/s Ansal Housing and Constructions Limited & anr
Citation – Complaint No. 638 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s Ansal Housing and Constructions Limited to pay interest and provide offer of possession to homebuyer within 2 months.
The homebuyer who booked a flat in 2011 expected possession by November 2015. However, due to the builder's failure to deliver the flat on time, the homebuyer approached the authority.
MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Case Title: Chandrakant N. Shendkar & Anr. Versus Shri Sati Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Along with 2 others
Citation: Appeal Nos.AT0060000000053734, 93909 and 133986
While holding the builder notice demanding further payment from homebuyers on the grounds of escalation in the cost of building materials unlawful, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member) ruled that escalation costs are only permissible from the execution of the sale agreement until the due date of possession.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Case Title: Vivek Gulati Vs. Realtech Developments And Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 1434/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that withholding the buyer's deposit amount beyond the estimated date without any prospect for delivering the possession amounts as deficiency in service.
Case Title: Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Lata Chaudhary
Case Number: R. P. No. 733/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, held that raising demand for additional amounts and arbitrary cancelling of the booked flat amounts as deficiency in service.
Case Title: Mallela Muralidhar Vs. M/S. Lodha Healthy Construction & builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: F.A. No. 2326/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that making buyers wait indefinitely for possession amounts to deficiency in service.
Case Title: Dhwani Associate Developers & Builders &Ors. Vs. Rajendra Talati & Anr.
Case Number: F.A. No. 2332/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that failure to fulfill contractual obligations and delay in handing over possession amounts as deficiency in service.
Case Title: Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Suresh Chandra Sharma
Case Number: R.P. No. 788/2020
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that a substantial price hike by the developer without a proper justification amounts as deficiency in service.
Case Title: Late Mohan S. Kale Vs. Hillari Victor D'souza
Case Number: F.A. No. 404/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that reliance on force majeure clauses to justify prolonged delays in possession is unacceptable and amounts to deficiency in service.