Real estate_Transfer of allotment after BBA but before conveyance/sale_ permissible

 

Supreme Court of India in  DLF Universal Ltd. & ANR. Vs Director, T. & C. Planning Haryana & Ors.

With Civil Appeal No. 551 Of 2003

 

 

18.  Whether the owner/colonizer in law after obtaining full payments from the allotters is prohibited from transferring the plots to the nominees of the allottees? Whether the allottees' right to nominate another person as purchaser of the property can be denied by the colonizer?

 

19.  The prevailing practice of permitting transfer of plots before registration of conveyance deed to the allottee is not contrary to the provisions of the Act or the Rules. *The only justification sought to be given by the respondent in this regard is that the State would like a separate set of stamp duty paid to it in respect of each transaction, even though there is no conveyance deed executed as yet in respect of the land in question.* This argument is wholly devoid of any merit. Section 17 (1)(b) of the Registration Act requires that where the Conveyance Deed has been prepared for effecting the transfer of a plot or other immovable property, such deed should be registered within a period of 4 months after its execution.  *It does not, however, contain any provision whatsoever requiring that a Conveyance Deed should be executed within any period of time after the execution of sale agreement between the buyer and the seller. Nor there is any provision whatsoever in the Stamp Act or Registration Act imposing any restriction on the assignment or transfer of rights under a sale/purchase agreement by the purchaser to a third party, before the execution of any conveyance deed in respect of any immovable property.*  The parties in the agreement had agreed for the substitution of the name of allottees at the sole discretion of the owner. The conveyance deed executed by the owner is the one which is executed either in favour of the allottee or his nominee as the case may be on which a proper stamp duty and registration fee is required to be paid. In any event the Director has no power under the Act or the Rules to issue any such directional together prohibiting such nomination of another person thereby substituting the allottee

 

Source: https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2010/november/67.php

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal_ promoter liability_possession period in BBA and completion period RERA Registration Certificate

 

With respect to the liability of a promoter regarding the possession period in BBA of pre-RERA time and completion period of an ongoing project as mentioned in HRERA Registration Certificate, The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.21 of 2019 titled as M/s Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Versus  Prakash Chand Arohi, Decided on 20.05.2020  has categorically ruled at Para 73:

 

“We have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.  Likely or actual date of completion of the project has been mentioned to be February, 2019 in the Certificate of Registration granted by the learned Authority.  This date might have been mentioned in the Registration Certificate on the basis of declaration submitted by the promoter under Section 4(2)(l)(C) of the Act at the time of getting the project registered. This declaration is given unilaterally by the promoter to the Authority at the time of getting the real estate project registered.  The allottee had no opportunity to raise any objection at that stage, so this unilateral Act of mentioning the date of completion of project by the builder will not abrogate the rights of the allottee under the agreements for sale entered into between the parties.  The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case Neel Kamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. Union of India and others (Supra) has laid down as under: -

 

“Section 4(2)(l)(C) enables the promoter to revise the date of completion of project and hand over possession. The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(l)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(l)(C) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale.”

 

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court by taking note of the provisions of section 4(2)(l)(c) of the Act has categorically laid down that the provisions of the Act will not re-write the clause of completion or handing over of the possession mentioned in the agreement for sale. The fresh time line independent of the time stipulated in the agreement is given in order to save the developer from the penal consequences but he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale. Thus, the appellant/builder was required to offer the possession of the unit to the respondent/allottee as per the terms and conditions of the agreements, failing which the respondent/allottee will be entitled to claim the remedies as provided under section 18 of the Act.

http://mintuinfo.blogspot.com/2020/11/supreme-courtongoing-projecteffect-of.html

NCDRC_If a petition is totally bereft of merit, no notice is required

 

NCDRC_If a petition is totally bereft of merit, no notice is required

11.     The argument made by learned senior Counsel, in the hearing on admission on 01.12.2020, that in “similar” cases of other traders notice has been issued by co-ordinate benches of this Commission, is not tenable.

 

A revision petition merits issuance of notice if a prima facie case is made out on merit. If a revision petition is totally bereft of merit, no notice is required, it can (and albeit should) be dismissed on admission, with reasons recorded.

 

Mere issuance of notice by a co-ordinate bench in “similar” cases of other traders is not a binding precedent.

 

For a precedent to be binding, one, the issue in question has to be duly examined, and, two, the reasons for arriving at the conclusion arrived at have to be duly recorded. Without examination or reasons recorded on the issue in question, an order does not become a binding precedent; only if an issue is examined and decided with a reasoned order, it becomes a binding precedent. (And then, too, for further reasons recorded subsequently, the precedent could be reviewed or referred to a larger bench etc. as per the new facts and wiser counsel and as per the law.)

 

In the context of the doctrine of binding precedent, there is a material difference between interim / interlocutory Orders and final Orders / Judgments. The daily orders referred to by the learned senior Counsel are not final Orders / Judgments.  

 

Another argument made that in a “similar” case of a trader relating to charging of additional cost for carry bags, the Competition Appellate Tribunal, vide its Order dated 07.07.2005, in Appeal No. 64 of 2015, Kamble Sayabanna Kallappa vs. Lifestyle International Private Limited, dismissed the Appeal preferred against the refusal of the Competition Commission of India to order an investigation into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of the concerned trader, is also not tenable

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 975 OF 2020
(Against the Order dated 18/05/2020 in Appeal No. 238/2019 of the State Commission Chandigarh)

 

 

1. BIG BAZAAR (FUTURE RETAIL LTD.)
Versus
1. ASHOK KUMAR

 

 Dated : 22 Dec 2020

NCDRC_determining the pecuniary jurisdiction_value of the goods or services paid as consideration_Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 NCDRC_determining the pecuniary jurisdiction_value of the goods or services paid as consideration_Consumer Protection Act, 2019

8.       It appears that the Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumer should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not value of the goods or services and compensation, and that is why a specific provision has been made in Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission respectively.

9.       For ready reference the provisions of Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are reproduced below:

“34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain  complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:”

 

“47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:”

 

“58. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:”

 

 

10.     From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/ taken. Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

Case No. CC/833/2020

M/S. PYARIDEVI CHABIRAJ STEELS PVT. LTD v NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & 3 ORS.

NCDRC_No holding charges_2020

 

15.    The opposite party is claiming holding charges from the complainant, but, in view of the decision of this Commission in Capital Greens Flat Buyer Association & Ors. Vs. DLF Universal Limited & Anr. alongwith connected matters, decided on 03.01.2020, the opposite party is not entitled to such charges.  The above referred decision of this Commission, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

   "As far as holding charges are concerned, the developer having received the sale consideration has nothing to lose by holding possession of the allotted flat except that it would be required to maintain the apartment. Therefore, the holding charges will not be payable to the developer. Even in a case where the possession has been delayed on account of the allottee having not paid the entire sale consideration, the developer shall not be entitled to any holding charges though it would be entitled to interest for the period the payment is delayed."

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Springdale Core Consultants Pvt. ... vs Pioneer Urban Land And ... on 14 July, 2020

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100954274/