CAN HOME BUYERS DIRECTLY APPROACH SUPREME COURT IF BUILDER DEFAULTS?

Home Buyers, Justice, Supreme Court, Law


“Roti, Kapda aur Makan”. These are the Three Basic needs. Economic growth of recent 2-3 decades have fuelled up Housing demands. Because of high land cost, security and other concerns, majority populations are looking forward for a Flat in a High Rise Building. Here builders comes into picture.

 

Real Estate Home Buyers Remedy

Generally Builders take 3–5 years time for Construction of Flat. Builder’s Default is common and Order of the day. How to get the speedy justice for Home-Buyers? Normally, Courts and Tribunals takes Years and by the time, any relief is achieved by Home-buyers, golden years of his life are over.

 

Justice for Home Buyers

Two fast methods of achieving the result was (1) Approaching NCLT for liquidation and thereby creating pressure on the Builder and (2) Approaching Supreme Court in Writ Jurisdiction , directly.

Unfortunately, GOI in December, 2019 imposed practically impossible conditions for approaching NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) by Home-Buyers.

Earlier Supreme Court was entertaining Home- Buyers Writ Petition in many matters e.g. Unitech Matter thereby providing them with Speedy Justice. But now Supreme Court in the matter of Upendra Choudhury Vs Bulandsahar Development Authority WP (c) No. 150of 2021 has refused to entertain Writ Petition of Home-Buyers U/A 32 of Constitution of India. The impact of this Judgment will be :-

Speedy Justice (a Valuable Right) is denied to the Home-Buyers.

Now, even High Courts can take Shelter of this Judgment may not entertain Writ Petition against Builders. This Judgment will postpone the Home-Buyers dream of “Home” by another few years.

In case , you need any clarification / assistance / help, please feel free to contract me on my whatsapp number. 


MY GOOGLE MAP LOCATION

Location: Delhi, India
Praveen Agrawal Advocate Supreme Court of India A 37 LGF, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar - 4, New Delhi Phone # 9811702850 dokania100@gmail.com NO CALLS PLEASE ONLY WHATSAPP ME - IF I FEEL NECESSARY I WILL CALL YOU BACK

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WILL PROCEEDINGS START DE-NOVO OR CONTINUE IN CASE OF RETURN OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 CPC?

Image
      Order 7 and Return of Plaint is one of the fundamental objections taken by Defense Counsel in Civil Litigation. In case of return of Plaint from a Court lacking inherent Jurisdiction to the court of appropriate Jurisdiction, a moot question arises for consideration is whether the proceedings shall start “De-Novo” (fresh) or it will be a continuance of the earlier proceedings ?   There has been a difference of opinion even in Supreme Court and therefore the matter was referred to a larger bench. The Issue is now settled in the matter of  EXL Careers Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services  Private Limited    decided on 05-08-2020 as follows :-    (1) The proceedings will start afresh (DE-NOVO) and NO cognizance of  proceedings or earlier court will be considered.   (2) For the purpose of limitation, Plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the case before the court having no jurisdiction.   ...
Read more

ARE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF SECTION 65B EVIDENCE ACT, CERTIFICATE?

Image
           Electronic Evidence plays a vital role in any trial – Civil or Criminal. As per Common understanding Electronic Evidence is inadmissible, if it is not accompanied with Section 65B Certificate. Thereby debarring good evidence because of lack of Section 65B Certificate.   Law on this aspect is re-visited by Supreme Court and it is held as under:-   • If Original Electronic Evidence is produced, there is no need of Section 65B Certificate. However, copies of Original Electronic Evidence will require Section 65B Certificate.    • Electronic Evidence cannot be proved as Secondary Evidence as per Evidence Act.   • Section 65A and 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.    • Concerned Court can relax the production of Section 65B Certificate to the Person who is NOT in possession of device from which electronic evidence is produced.    Case Law - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao ...
Read more

BORROWER LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST EVEN WHEN LENDER REFUSES TO ACCEPT PAYMENT

Image
      The Common understanding is if Lender has refused to accept the repayment of Loan, then the Borrower’s Liability to pay the interest ceases from the date of such refusal. However, this does not seems to be the correct proposition of Law.  In an recent judgment titled Balwinder Singh Vs. Mithoot Finance (P) Limited and Ors Ld National Consumer Dispute REdressal Commission (NCDRC), (Revision Petition No. 2194 of 2015, Decided On: 23.07.2020 ) refused to accept the argument of the Borrower that he has tendered to repay and imposed an interest on the borrower even for the period subsequent to the said offer to repay.   While coming to this conclusion , LD NCDRC relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors. , II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) has observed as under:-  “9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal...
Read more