Mumbai: In setbacks to coloring and manufacturing companies, who developed two “ultra-luxury” towers in Wadala, Bombay High Court on Monday on the court order directing it to return it with the number of flowers that have ordered flat in 2012- 13.
Flat must be delivered 2017.
Ashok Narang, a broker, and other buyers initially filed a complaint with the Maharashtra Real Estat Supervisory Authority (Maharera) who accused the delay in ownership.
They are looking for refunds and out under section 18 and call part 12 of the real estate law (regulation and development) for compensation.
They included reducing other facilities and “unilateral changes” in the apartment and project layout by the builder while registering ongoing projects in May 2017 when the Maharera Law came into force.
Developers say facilities are provided.
Section 12 Rera places the obligation to the builder or project promoter for “honesty” from advertisements or brochures.
It is said that when a buyer who pays a deposit based on information in the brochure or ad suffers the loss because of the false information contained in it, it can be compensated by the builder.
HC Assessment by Justice C V Blateng held: “Part 12 will also apply to the promoter obligation regarding the information provided …
before the Project Registration is based on the 2016 Rera Project as an ongoing project.” “Retroactive” provisions, HC is held.
HC said “Brochures did mention US ownership dates 2017”.
The developer said the date is subject to his distinguity in the brochure.
HC rejected the argument, said the distinguity did not mention the date of ownership.
The buyer does not have relief from Maharera but in December 2019, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal cancels the ration and has directed the developer to return money.
They have paid Rs 2 Crore or 20% of the flat fee when ordering.
Harmed, Bombay staining goes to HC in the second appeal.
His advice on Madon, JP Sen and Nieliya Kalra argued that the action needed an agreement to be sold for its existence in writing, for the obligation to builder below section 12 or 18 (compensation to the buyer for the delay in ownership) to kick.
Shiraz RustomJee, advice for buyers, said it was not mentioned in the Special Act for the written agreement for sale, except in Part 13, which made a deposit or down payment taken by a builder for sale.
HC “find strength” in the buyer’s argument that part 18 and the definition of “agreement for sale” in ACT “does not meet the written sales agreement requirements”.
“Whether the legislature intended by the agreement referred to in Section 18 also to be written, no one prevents it from doing it,” said the HC decision, even though the judge said he “did not propose to put an absolute proposition that binded the problem” because the refund was also based on violation of part 12 Rera.
HC rejects the Builder’s appeal and does not give a stay.
Builder can appeal.