{"id":250448,"date":"2021-06-29T15:00:39","date_gmt":"2021-06-29T09:30:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=250448"},"modified":"2021-08-13T23:21:08","modified_gmt":"2021-08-13T17:51:08","slug":"builder-buyer-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"NCDRC | Builder unilaterally, high-handedly cancels sale agreement on not handing over timely possession: Commission decides builder-buyer dispute, levies interest to be paid by builder"},"content":{"rendered":"

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): <\/strong>Coram of C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Member) decided an issue with regard to handing over of possession of flat and cancellation of sale agreement in a builder — buyer dispute.<\/p>\n

Arun Kedia (HUF), Arun Kedia and Sabita Kedia (Husband and Wife), members of HUF filed the present complaint.<\/p>\n

What led to the filing of the complaint?<\/span><\/h3>\n

OP 1 made advertisements from time to time, inviting applications from prospective buyers for the purchase of the flats.<\/p>\n

In 2013, complainants approached the OP and booked a residential flat for purchase and deposited booking charges, in the office of the OP. In June, 2013, a registered sale agreement was executed between the parties. By that time the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs 73,51,426 in the office of the OP. The balance amount was to be paid in instalments.<\/p>\n

Complainants paid the amount of instalments as mentioned in the agreement as and when it was demanded by the OP. According to the complainants, thereafter they neither received any demand letter nor possession of the allotted flat was handed to them till March, 2016. They received a demand letter but as in this letter no date of delivery of possession was mentioned as such, they did not deposit the amount demanded in it, rather wrote letters requesting to handover possession over the flat allotted to them.<\/p>\n

It was also stated that the complainants were not allowed to go to the site and verify the progress in construction. OP assured the complainants that they would be given possession within a short time.<\/p>\n

When the registered notice was served to the OP, they unilaterally cancelled the agreement, mentioning therein that in spite of the demand letter, they had not deposited the instalment as fixed in the agreement.<\/p>\n

Complainants requested and sent registered notices to OP to cancel the agreement and hand over the possession, but since the notices were not complied with, the present complaint was filed.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

Whether the complainants were defaulter in payment of instalments as fixed in the agreement in spite of the notice given by the OP, they failed to pay it within 7 days and hence the OP exercised its power under the agreement and revoked the agreement?<\/p>\n

OR<\/strong><\/p>\n

OP had failed to complete the construction till March 2016 and in order to cover its default, the agreement was cancelled in a high-handed manner, to harass the complainants and divert their mind from asking possession?<\/p>\n

Bench noted that the agreement fixed reciprocal liabilities upon both parties.<\/p>\n

Further, it was added that if the opposite party has not abided by the terms of the agreement and committed a serious breach then it cannot blame the complainants that they have not deposited the instalments well within time or within seven days issue of the letter of demand.<\/p>\n

Commission held that there was nothing on record to prove that the demand letters were actually issued to the complainants. Therefore, the allegation that the complainants committed default in payment on instalment for which the agreement was cancelled was not proved.<\/p>\n

Adding to the above reasoning, Clause-14 of the agreement requires service of 30 days prior notice in writing of its intension to terminate the agreement. No such notice was issued by the opposite party to the complainants. Cancellation of agreement, of which the intimation was given through letter, was illegal.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Coram held that there was nothing on record to show that till March, 2016, the construction was completed and a completion certificate was obtained from the competent authority.<\/p>\n

According to Section 8 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, if the builder is not able to hand over the possession over the building\/flat within the time specified in the agreement then the builder is liable to pay interest to the purchaser of the flat for the period for which the possession has not been handed over.<\/p>\n

Due to latches on the party of the OP, the complainants suffered a loss. The agreement for sale had been cancelled illegally and malafide, in a high handed manner and the complainants were forced into litigation.<\/p>\n

Commission directed the OP to handover the possession to the Complainants after taking balance sale consideration within 2 months and execute the final deed of transfer. OP shall also pay simple interest @6% p.a.to the complainants on the amount deposited by them from the due date of possession to the offer of possession after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. \u00a0[Arun Kedia (HUF) v. Runwal Homes (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 189<\/b><\/a>, decided on 24-06-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates before the Commission:<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the Complainant: Mr. R.M. Kedia, Advocate<\/p>\n

Ms. Sabita Kedia, Complainant in person<\/p>\n

For the Opp. Party: Ms. Anita Marathe, Advocate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Coram of C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Member) decided an issue <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":199533,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[46381,14601,31402,39059,29785,42834,2634,43040],"class_list":["post-250448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-builder-buyer-dispute","tag-consumer","tag-demand-notice","tag-flat","tag-law","tag-legal-news","tag-possession","tag-sale-agreement"],"yoast_head":"\nNCDRC | Builder unilaterally, high-handedly cancels sale agreement on not handing over timely possession: Commission decides builder-buyer dispute, levies interest to be paid by builder | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Builder Buyer Dispute\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NCDRC | Builder unilaterally, high-handedly cancels sale agreement on not handing over timely possession: Commission decides builder-buyer dispute, levies interest to be paid by builder\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Builder Buyer Dispute\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-06-29T09:30:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-08-13T17:51:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/\",\"name\":\"NCDRC | Builder unilaterally, high-handedly cancels sale agreement on not handing over timely possession: Commission decides builder-buyer dispute, levies interest to be paid by builder | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-06-29T09:30:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-08-13T17:51:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Builder Buyer Dispute\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NCDRC | Builder unilaterally, high-handedly cancels sale agreement on not handing over timely possession: Commission decides builder-buyer dispute, levies interest to be paid by builder\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"NCDRC | Builder unilaterally, high-handedly cancels sale agreement on not handing over timely possession: Commission decides builder-buyer dispute, levies interest to be paid by builder | SCC Times","description":"Builder Buyer Dispute","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NCDRC | Builder unilaterally, high-handedly cancels sale agreement on not handing over timely possession: Commission decides builder-buyer dispute, levies interest to be paid by builder","og_description":"Builder Buyer Dispute","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-06-29T09:30:39+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-08-13T17:51:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/","name":"NCDRC | Builder unilaterally, high-handedly cancels sale agreement on not handing over timely possession: Commission decides builder-buyer dispute, levies interest to be paid by builder | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","datePublished":"2021-06-29T09:30:39+00:00","dateModified":"2021-08-13T17:51:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Builder Buyer Dispute","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/29\/builder-buyer-dispute\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NCDRC | Builder unilaterally, high-handedly cancels sale agreement on not handing over timely possession: Commission decides builder-buyer dispute, levies interest to be paid by builder"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":256639,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/02\/law-on-builder-buyer-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":250448,"position":0},"title":"Law on Builder-Buyer Dispute | 9-years delay in delivering possession of apartment: Read NCDRC\u2019s decision on refund and interest","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Can Buyer be asked to wait indefinitely for possession of flat even after 9-years of delay?","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256645,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/02\/law-on-unfair-trade-practice\/","url_meta":{"origin":250448,"position":1},"title":"Law on Unfair Trade Practice | Builder insisting to sign on papers which stated that \u201cbuyer was receiving villa in full ready condition\u201d even when it was not in a liveable condition: Is builder\u2019s act under \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019? NCDRC decides","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Noting unfair trade practice by the builder while insisting the buyers to sign a paper wherein it was stated \u201cthat they were receiving possession in full ready condition\u201d which was false, Coram of C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Member)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":251521,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/20\/builder-buyer-dispute-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":250448,"position":2},"title":"Builder handing over possession of plot with incomplete development beyond agreed time. Is buyer entitled to refund of deposit with interest? Commission decides","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The Division Bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Anil Srivastava (Member) addresses a builder-buyer dispute wherein refund in view of delayed possession along with incomplete internal development work was provided to the buyer. Instant complaint was filed against Parasvnath Developer Ltd. Crux of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237728,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/20\/ncdrc-builder-has-to-mention-the-date-of-delivery-of-possession-in-agreement-homebuyer-cannot-be-made-to-wait-for-possession-indefinietly\/","url_meta":{"origin":250448,"position":3},"title":"NCDRC | Builder has to mention the date of delivery of possession in agreement & failure to do so will be read against builder; Homebuyer cannot be made to wait for possession indefinitely","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):\u00a0\u00a0A Division Bench of Dr S.M. Kantikar (Presiding Member) and Dinesh Singh (Member) held that, a homebuyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. The instant appeal was preferred by the appellant under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256879,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/09\/law-on-force-majeure\/","url_meta":{"origin":250448,"position":4},"title":"Law on Force Majeure | Builder taking shelter of \u201cForce Majeure\u201d clause for delay in handing over possession: Justified or not? Read what NCDRC says","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Expressing that the builder cannot take shelter of \u201cForce Majeure\u201d while delay in handing over possession Coram of C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Member) directed for a refund of buyers\u2019 amount along with interest. Facts in a Nutshell Complainants had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257970,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/01\/false-assurance-given-to-buyer-for-delivery-of-possession-while-keeping-hard-earned-money-of-buyer-for-11-years\/","url_meta":{"origin":250448,"position":5},"title":"False assurance given to buyer for delivery of possession while keeping hard-earned money of buyer for 11 years: Commission directs builder to refund amount | Read full decision","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 1, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC): On finding deficiency in providing services, Coram of Dr Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Anil Srivastava (Member), held that the builder gave false assurances to the complainant with regard to handing over the buyer for delivery of possession. The instant complaint was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-24-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250448","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250448"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250448\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/199533"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}