SC Overrides Agreement while Compensating Flat Buyer for delayed possession

2 Comments

1. vswami says:

   To ADD: Going by Info., sincer gathered, in terms of and according to Agreement(s) with the buyers, the building project was to be submitted to the KAOA . If so, it is left to anyone’s wild guess why at all the reference is to ‘RWA’ ?!
   In this context, attention may be drawn to among others the recent deliberations at the webnar on Oct 4 2020 , sponsored by BAF, being the representative body of RWAs in Bangalore. For details, anyone really interested and having vested concerns may have to contact BAF.
   courtesy

     Reply

   October 8, 2020 at 7:32 am
2. vswami says:

   OFFHAND
   “SC OVERRIDES AGREEMENT while Compensating Flat Buyer for delayed possession”
   (FONT supplied)

   The SC has perceptibly done so on the judicious ground that the ‘Agreement’ suffers from the malady of being á ‘one-sided agreement, ‘patently bypassing/cunningly overriding the lawful rights and interests the purchasers are otherwise entitled both in law and equity.

   As differently viewed, and critically so, – if were to be based on a well-founded reasoning and sound logic, – there could conceivably be no doubt that the favourable verdict of the SC should not but be of avail to all the buyers of ‘apartments’ (X Flats) in the DLF Project as a whole; and, premised so, should help and support the claim for interest by all ofthem.

   Notwithstanding that, in terms of the Judgment delivered by the SC in the civil appeal proceedings, compensatory interest has been, disagreeing with the unfavourable verdict of the NCDRC, directed to be allowed only to the limited group (s) of the buyers who have taken on, got impleaded and directly participated as ‘appellants’ in the subject proceedings.

   Should it be duly considered, however, the lawful right of all the buyers, as a class, could have been diligently taken care and sufficiently secured had, – instead of such civil appeal proceedings,- as a matter of prudence and abundant forethought, been taken up to the apex court, by filing a writ (in the form of a PIL, eminently drafted).

   Incidentally, as per the narration of the facts, as personally read and understood, even the basic interest of 5% pm., -though admittedly due as per the terms of the contract agreement itself,- does not seem to have been claimed by, and /or allowed to, all the buyers.

   The main plank of the stance taken by the buyers is that ‘delays on the part of the developer in handing over possession postpone the date on which purchasers will obtain a home’.

   In the larger interests of the purchasers, however, there are quite a few other angles requiring attention to have been drawn to and addressed for adjudication in precise terms; especially, such as in a case in which such purchase is by way of a ‘roll over investment’ in a ‘new asset’, with a view to availing of the entitlement to tax exemption in respect of ‘capital gains ‘otherwise chargeable. This is an aspect on which, for an analytical discussion, suggest referring to the Article displayed @ https://taxguru.in/income-tax/sec-54f-brain-teaser.html.

   Over to the concerned buyers for sharing any thoughts/ helpful feedback on the indicted lines; and for pursuing the common grievances , if so advised by an eminent counsel, by relying on the cited SC Verdict ?!

   Note: May have MORE to share / re-share and reiterate the other angles of most concern and common relevance wprt the several related Articles likewise displayed on this website itself.

     Reply

   September 16, 2020 at 11:32 am