No possession period in BBA_Agreement_Reasonable possession period

 

Hon’ble Apex Court in case M/s Fortune Infrastructure (now known as M/s Hicon Infrastructure) & anr. 2018 STPL 4215 SC has laid down as under: - 

“15. Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to?” 

Concealment of material fact

 

21. Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Bhriguram De v. State of W.B., 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 8141, decided on 20.09.2018, the relevant paragraph is reproduced herein:

“15.     According to the Law Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin Maxim “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” defines that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. The suppression or failure to disclose what one party is bound to disclose to another, may amount to fraud. Where a person is found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of the Court, he is not entitled for any equitable relief under order 39 of CPC (5 of 1908). [Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazi Md. Faizullah Khan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat) : (2006) 1 BLJR 430].

 

16.      The maxim that one who comes to Court must come with “clean hands” is based on conscience and good faith. The maxim is confined to misconduct in regard to, or at all events connected with, the matter in litigation. “Clean hands” means a clean record with respect to the transaction with the defendant, and not with respect to any third person.

 

17.       As authored by Ruma Pal, J. in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166 [Coram: Ruma Pal and P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.J.], suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. The relevant portion is provided below:

“13.      As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material from the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken……..”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

CONSUMER CASE NO. 864 OF 2020

1. LALIT KUMAR & ORS.	...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S. E-HOMES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS.	...........Opp.Party(s)

Source https://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FCC%2F864%2F2020&dtofhearing=2023-06-14