The petitioner has filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court against the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ("NOIDA Authority") and the developers in order to quash the revised plan approved by the respondent for the construction of 2 new towers in NOIDA Authority and to issue for further directions for the demolition of the abovementioned towers, as the approval and the construction of these towers was in violation of the provisions of U.P. Apartments Act, 2010. The court has emphasized that it is illegal and unauthorized constructions of buildings and other structure not only violate the municipal laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. The court further stated that the common man feels cheated when he finds that illegal and unauthorized constructions are supported by the people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plan and zonal plan as well as building regulations. The Court has clearly laid down that they were not at all impressed by the plea of financial loss or proposed sale in respect of the flats being constructed as pleaded by the Respondent Company. The court laid down that once the sanction for two towers was in total breach of the building regulations, 2010 and Apartment Act, 2010, then the Court would be failing in its duty if respondent company/developer is permitted to raise the constructions.
DLF Limited and DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. CCI & Others
The appellant in the present case had announced a housing complex named as 'The Belaire' which was supposed to be constructed on the land earmarked in Zone 8, Phase-V in DLF City, Gurgaon, Haryana. The advertisement given out by the appellant was that each of the five multi-storied buildings on the abovementioned earmarked land was to consist of 19 floors and 368 apartments. As per the advertisement, the construction was to be completed within a period of 36 months. The respondents had averred that in place of 19 floors with 368 apartments, the appellant constructed 29 floors in all the buildings and, consequently, the areas and facilities originally earmarked for the apartment allottees were substantially compressed. It also pointed out that the project was abnormally delayed, as a result of which, hundreds of apartment allottees had to bear huge financial losses, as their hard-earned money was blocked in booking the flats and they had to wait indefinitely for occupation of their respective apartments.
The court had also taken into consideration that the Apartment Buyer's Agreements were signed months after the booking of the apartment and by that time the allottees had already paid substantial amount as they hardly had any option but to adhere to the dictates of the appellant. The said Apartment Buyer's Agreement ("ABA") was devised by the appellant for booking the apartments and a person desirous of booking the apartment was required to accept it in entirety by giving assent to the ABA on signing the dotted lines, even when clauses of the ABA were onerous and one-sided. The respondents further contended that the statutory approvals and clearances were not obtained by the appellant which resulted in unreasonable delay caused to the respondents.
The CCI had ordered the director general ("DG") to investigate the said matter and submit a report on the same. The DG submitted the report and came to the conclusion that the appellant was a dominant player in the relevant market. For this, the DG considered the various factors in section 19(4) of the Competition Act.
Taking the report of DG into consideration, the COMPAT came to the conclusion that the appellant had abused its dominant position and committed breach of section 4(2)(a)(i) and section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
Zircon Venture Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Zircon Ventures A registered Association of Persons
The question which arose before the BHC was that whether in the present case the Promoter/Developer has made a true and full disclosure of the entire scheme and is consequently entitled to put up construction in the present given plot.
The Respondent had undertaken the development of a property which was divided in two plots. The present suit is in reference to the second plot of the two divided plots. As per the initial sanctioned layout, 12 buildings were proposed to be developed. After the construction of 9 buildings, a completion certificate was obtained by the respondent and the society was registered with respect to the flat purchasers of the 9 buildings in the year 2009. In the year 2012, the Respondent had informed the society that it is intending to start construction work on the 10th building in the same plot. The society along with office bearers filed the present suit in question stating that the construction of the building is sought to be constructed in the place earmarked for closed parking as per the sanctioned layout plan.
In the agreement for sale a reference is made to the sanctioned layout in which 12 residential buildings are shown, which includes the building in question. In the brochure which was printed by the Developers/Promoters, it proposed the construction of 10 buildings.
In the pertinent case the society has chosen the revised sanctioned layout to base their averments on. There is no reference to the sanctioned layout which is a part of the Agreement to sell or the brochure. It is pertinent to note that in the sanctioned layout of 2005, the said building is shown and though the sanctioned layout of 2006 shows it as a car parking, it is provided that there would be future expansion against transfer of development rights ("TDR") and the extent of the building is also disclosed. Therefore, prior consent of the purchasers is not required.
The BHChas laid down that the scheme of development has been disclosed and the sanctioned layout of 2005 envisages the construction of 12 buildings including the building in question. In the view of the court, this is not a case in which the nature of construction has undergone a drastic change. Therefore, in the light of the covenants contained in the agreement, with reference to the sanctioned layout of 2005, also the brochure, it can be said that the Defendant has made a true and full disclosure of the complete scheme of development hence there is no necessity to take the consent of the flat purchasers for further construction.
Sapan Chopra v. M/S. Ultimate Builders and Developer (P) Ltd
The High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal of Sapan Chopra and his mother Madhu Chopra ("Appellants") against the grant of specific performance of the contract entered into with Ultimate Builders and Developer (P) Ltd ("Respondents") under the Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("S R Act").
In this case, the Appellants, who were the owners of a plot, on which a 2 ½ storied building exists, were desirous of carrying out extensive repairs, additions and alterations in the existing building, and having no finances to do so, entered into an agreement with the Respondents. As per the agreement the Respondents agreed to renovate, make additions and alterations in the ground floor and purchase the first and the partly constructed second floor. Alleging the breach of the above agreement by the Appellants, the Respondents filed a suit for specific performance.
Subsequently, in the appeal filed by the Appellants, it was held that the Respondent had failed to establish that it was all throughout ready and willing to perform its obligations under the contract which is an essential under Section 4 of the S R Act. Additionally, the Court held that the said contract had a dual character which made the Respondent a contractor to renovate the existing ground floor by making additions and alterations with details in minute specifications, which would mean that composite composition for the sale of the first floor and second floor was not only payment of the agreed money but also the execution of civil, electrical, plumbing, drainage and sanitary works. The latter involved not only bringing to site the requisite material but also labour and supervision. It was held that as per Section 14 (b) and (d) of the S R Act, the court cannot enforce a contract which involves performance of a continuous duty which the Court cannot supervise. Further, the court held that the contract couldn't be severed into two parts first involving the sale of the first and second floor for an agreed consideration and the reconstruction and the renovation of the ground floor at an agreed consideration.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
