LexLATA CONSTRUCTION AND ORS. versus DR. RAMESHCHANDRA RAMNIKLAL SHAH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B LATA CONSTRUCTION AND ORS. v. DR. RAMESHCHANDRA RAMNIKLAL SHAH AND ANR. AUGUST 12, 1999 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 24A-Respondents entered into an Agreement with Appellant No. I in 1987 for purchase of a flat to be built by the appellants afterwards-Part payment made by the respondents- C Appellants failed to deliver possession of the flat-later the flat found to be in possession of some other person-Appellants entered into a fresh Agreement with (he Respondents in 1991-Agreed to pay compensation to the Respondents in lieu of the flat on or before 30-05-1991-New Agreement stipulated that the 1987 Agreement would remain unajfected-1987 Agreement D was to be treated as terminated only on full payment of compensation- Appellants neither delivered possession of the flat nor paid the said amount- Complaint fi/ed before the Natienal Commission in July, 1993-Claim decreed for the compensation amount in lieu of flat-Order of the National Commission appealed on ground of limitation-Held, as 1991 Agreement not complied with, the 1987 Agreement remained in force-Appellants were under a E constant obligation to provide a flat to the Respondents under the previous Agreement-Appellants failing to provide a flat, cause of action continued to exist-Claim was not beyond time. Contract Act, 1872-Section 62-Agreement between Appellant No. I and the Respondents in 1987-Respondents to purchase flat from Appellants F to be built later-Appellants failed to deliver possession of the flat-Appellants entered into afresh Agreement with the respondents in 199/_:_Agreed to pay compensation to the respondents in lieu of the flat on or before 30-05-1991- New Agreement stipulated that the 1987 Agreement would remain unaffected- 1987 Agreement was to be treated as terminated only on full payment of G compensation-Appellants neither delivered possession of the flat nor paid the said amount-Complaint filed before the National Commission for the amount of compensation-Claim decreed for compensation amount-Order of the National Commission appealed against-Contended that after 1991 Agreement, the rights under the 1987 Agreement could not be claimed-No remedy available to the respondents before the National Commission- H 412 ... . .. LATA CONSTRUCTION v. DR. R.R. SHAH 413 ; Respondents could approach civil court for recovery of the compensation A amount-Held, as 1991 Agreement not complied with, the terms of 1987 Agreement remained in force-Respondents could legally claim enforcement of right under the 1987 Agreement-Entitled to file a complaint before the .... National Commission for compensation on account of deficiency in service. The respondents who were in Libya had entered into an agreement B dated 27-01-1987 with Appellant No. 1 according to which the appellants were to develop, construct and hand over possession of flat No. AG-2 on the ground floor with an area of 670 sq. ft. situated in a building named "Madhusudan" in Ville Parle, Bombay. On 27th of January, 1987, the respondents paid a sum of Rs. 3,38,000 to the appellants in cash but without C any receipt and a sum of Rs. 32,000 by cheque against receipt. The respondents also paid a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellants on various dates as demanded by them. In June, 1988 when the appellants returned from Libya, they requested the appellants to deliver, on payment of balance amount ~f sale consideration, possession of the flat to them as the construction of D the building was complete. However, the appellants refused to accept the payment and deliver the possession on the plea that the building was still under construction particularly as the electricity, plumbing etc. work was in progress. The appellants assured the respondents that as and when the building would be completed in all respects, they would deliver the possession by accepting the balance amount. In April, 1990, when the respondents again E came back from Libya and visited the building, they found the flat locked, with a name plate ofsome other person on the main door. In January, 1991 after returning from Libya, the respondents demanded the possession of the flat, but the appellants expressed their inability to give possession of the Oat to the respondents in compliance of the agreement dated 27-01-1987. The F appellants, however, entered into a fresh agreement with the respondents on 23-02-1991 agreeing t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.