Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

SC holds both State Commission and National Commission erred in imposing entire compensation liability on developer

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


SC holds both State Commission and National Commission erred in imposing entire compensation liability on developer The Supreme Court of India has modified the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding the Parsvnath Developers Ltd. liable to pay compensation to the respective allottees/buyers/original complainants to the extent of 70%, and the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) to pay 30% of the compensation in terms of clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement.

The present appeals were filed by Parsvnath Developers Ltd. against the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein they were directed to pay the entire amount of compensation to the buyers/allottees in terms of clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement.

The issue before the Court was whether the compensation awarded by the State Commission in terms of clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement is payable solely by the developer or it is to be shared between the developer and the CHB in the ratio of 70:30.

The Court noted that the learned arbitrator in the award dated 09.01.2015 had specifically directed that any amount payable on account of refund of price, interest, or compensation would be borne by the appellant and the CHB in the ratio of 70:30, and the award passed by the learned arbitrator had attained finality.

Parsvnath Developers Ltd. Vs Gagandeep Brar and Another 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/13-Apr-2023-PARSVANATH-DEVELOPERS-LTD-Vs-Gagandeep.pdf"]

Latest Legal News