Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

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"]

Similar News