Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Promoters include the entity which is constructing building as well as entity which is selling apartments or plots MANU/SC/0435/2019 - (25 Mar 2020) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Association for Consumer Welfare and AID Vs. Granite Gate Properties Private Limited and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The consumer complaint filed by the Appellant, which was an association representing the buyers, seeks diverse reliefs including the grant of possession of flats to the allottees of the real estate project together with common amenities and restraining the Respondents from charging additional amounts for alleged increases in the area of the flats otherwise than in accordance with the allotment letters. The case of the Appellants before the National Commission was that the second Respondent, was the main promoter of the project and that it was vested with the primary responsibility of completing the project. In the complaint before the National Commission, the second Respondent to the present appeal was arrayed as opposite party No. 1, while the first Respondent to the present appeal was opposite party No. 2. National Commission directed that the second Respondent be deleted from the array of parties. 
At the present stage, the limited issue with which present Court is concerned is whether a direction for the deletion of the second Respondent was warranted. 
Under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate Act, 2016, the definition of the expression promoter would include the entity which is constructing the building as well as the entity which is selling the apartments or plots. 
On the basis of the material which was on record, it was not possible for the Court to conclude at the present stage that the second Respondent was unconnected with the project or has been impleaded as a party to the proceeding without any reason or basis. The issue as to what relief could be ultimately granted in the consumer complaint was a matter which would be determined during the course of the hearing of the complaint. 
Consequently, on the basis of the averments contained in the complaint as well as on the material which had been placed on the record by the second Respondent, an order for deletion was not warranted at this stage. The impugned order of the NCDRC is set aside. Appeal allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Party, Impleadment, Direction</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>