PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. versus GAGANDEEP BRAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 13-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.
v.
GAGANDEEP BRAR AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 6380 of 2021)
APRIL 13, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Compensation – Award of,
in a flat buyer agreement – Payment to be borne by the developer
or by the developer and Housing Board – On facts, in a dispute
between the developer and the Housing Board as regards
development agreement, arbitrator passed an award directing that
any amount payable on account of refund of price, interest or
compensation (if and when finally determined by the National
Commission/Supreme Court) would be borne by the developer and
the Housing Board in the ratio of 70:30 – Award attained finality –
However, the State Commission as well as the National Commission
fastened the entire liability to pay compensation solely upon the
developer – On appeal, held: Compensation in terms of clause 9(c)
of the Flat Buyer Agreement is to be shared between the developer
and the the Housing Board in the ratio of 70:30 as apportioned/
determined by the sole arbitrator in the award – Orders passed by
the National Commission and that of the State Commission modified
to the extent holding the developer liable to pay compensation under
clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement to the extent of 70% and
30% liability would be upon the Housing Board.
Chandigarh Housing Board v. M/s Parasvanath
Developers Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 10748/2016
decided on 17.12.2019 – referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6380
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2020 of the National
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in AE No. 4 of
2016.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6383, 6385, 6384, 6382 and 6381 of 2021.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 422
422
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv., Rajesh P., Deeptanshu Jain, Ms. Harvinder
Chowdhury, Vishal Kumar, Sahieya Singh, Tarun Gupta, Abhishek
Sharma, Ms. Sonam Gupta, Anurag Tandon, Kshitiz Rao, Manish Jha,
Kartikey Gupta, Divyam Agarwal, Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar, Ms. Nidhi
Tewari, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘National Commission’)
passed in the respective Appeal Executions dismissing the same, the
developer – Parsvnath Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as
the ’Developer’) has preferred four appeals bearing Civil Appeal Nos.
6380/2021, 6383/2021, 6385/2021 & 6384/2021.
1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders dated
04.10.2017 passed by the National Commission in I.A. Nos. 14331 &
14332 of 2017 (for modification) dismissing the said applications, the
Chandigarh Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CHB’) has
preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 6382 and 6381 of 2021.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:
That the Chandigarh Administration on 01.12.2005 appointed CHB
as the nodal agency for development of residential, commercial and other
related infrastructure facilities as an integrated project at Rajiv Gandhi
Chandigarh Technological Park in Chandigarh by the name “Pride Asia”.
The bid of the appellant – developer was accepted by the CHB.
Consequently, CHB and the developer entered into a Development
Agreement dated 06.10.2006 for grant of development rights in respect
of land measuring 123 acres. The said land was allotted to the appellant
– developer by CHB for constructing residential units, who then advertised
its project for the sale of flats and pent houses in the name and style as
“Parsvnath Pride Asia”.
2.1 The respective private respondents applied for allotment of
apartments in the said project. Later, Tripartite Agreements were
executed between the Developer, CHB and the private respondents/flat
owners/allottees. Clause 9(a) of the said agreement provided that the
construction of the flats was likely to be completed within 36 months
PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. v. GAGANDEEP BRAR AND
ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
from the date of signing of the Development Agreement between CHB
and the appellant, i.e., 06.10.2006. That the appellant could not carried
out the construction as, according to the appellant, the CHB failed to
handover the possession of the unencumbered land to it for raising the
construction.
2.2 A dis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.