Unitech falling prey to NCDRC's penalty
- National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) imposed a penalty of 12% to be paid by Unitech to its flat-owners from Gurgaon for the delay in handover.
- Unitech appealed for a stay order on the payment of compensation.
- Unitech filed a contention but NCDRC didn't comply resulting in Unitech paying litigation costs of complainants and 18% interest for each day of delay.
Complaint against Unitech drives them to jail custody
CA Sanjay Kalra and his business partner had filed a complaint against Unitech because of their delay in the delivery of a property in Habitat Apartments in upscale Greater Noida. The Court had ordered Unitech to refund payment, which was also not fulfilled by the company.
Unitech leaders bails out of the 14-day custody
- On the context of CA Sanjay Kalra and his partner Deepak Wadhwa's complaint against Unitech, the company heads were sent for a 14-day judicial custody.
- The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate denied bail as they were arrested under non-bailable warrant but the application was moved to the Additional Session Judge.
- They were granted interim bail till 14th January with a fine of ₹1,00,000 each.
Unitech wadding through debt
- Not only consumers but also depositors, whose savings are invested, have faced delays in payment.
- Several consumers of Unitech properties have been awaiting handover since 2007-08.
- Noida and Greater Noida authorities have claimed over ₹3,500 crore from Unitech and its affiliates.
- An estimated loss of ₹4247 crore, with other additional interest amount, had put the Unitech leaders in a fix.
Unitech arrest serves as reminder to other builders
- Breach of delivery of commercial and residential spaces by the realty giant has led to the arrest of the Unitech's directors.
- The arrest also does a great service of educating others to honour commitments and focus on swift delivery.
- Unitech's shares tumbled due to the inefficiency in its performance and consumer transactions.
- CREDAI chief backed Unitech for facing issues which were beyond its control.
Parsvnath Developers to pay penalty for delayed projects
- After Unitech which was ordered to pay 12% per annum for delayed projects, Parsvnath Developers has been ordered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to pay a monthly fine.
- This fine will go to the "buyers for delay in handing over flats in Parsvnath Planet".
- 175 sq-metres flat buyers will get ₹15,000/month while those with bigger flats will get ₹20,000/month from the builder.
Unitech's asked to choose: Jail or compensation?
- Adding to Unitech's troubles, the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission gave a 3-year prison sentence to 2 Unitech Ltd's managing directors.
- The duo was sentenced for non-compliance of commission's previous orders to give possession of a residential unit to two Delhi-based buyers after they'd already paid.
- Unitech will have to pay ₹53 lakhs in compensation by 30th May to make the judgment inoperative.
Apex Court on Unitech: We are pained
- On 17th August, 2016, Unitech was criticized by the Supreme Court for being unable to refund money to home buyers.
- People had invested in two of Unitech's projects in Noida and Gurgaon, both of which are lagging behind schedule.
- The top court asked Unitech to disburse ₹15 crore to 38 of its investors, saying "we are really pained."
SC asks Parsvnath to refund home buyers
- The Supreme Court asked Parsvnath Developers to deposit ₹12 crore with the court in four weeks, refusing to stay the NCDRC's order to refund money to the home buyers.
- The ₹12 crore will include the refund of money to 70 individuals who bought homes in their project along with 12% interest.
- The company's project was stalled after the Ghaziabad Development Authority refused construction permits.
Parsvnath asked to pay ₹22 crore
On 18 October, ruling that the consumers must not suffer due to developer delays, the SC directed Parsvnath Developers to pay ₹22 crore to 70 buyers who had invested in a delayed project in Ghaziabad.
SC asks Unitech to refund ₹16.5 crore to buyers
- Cracking down on delayed real estate projects, the SC asked Unitech to refund ₹16.5 crore to 39 buyers of properties in Unitech's Vista project in Gurgaon.
- The court observed that the buyers did not receive possession of the property despite 7 years having passed since the project started.
- The court will handle the disbursement of funds to the aggrieved buyers.
Handover Rathore's flat in 2 days: SC to Parsvnath builders
- Parsvnath builders have been directed by SC to give the possession of a flat to Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore in 2 days.
- The Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting was also asked not to pay more to the developer.
- The apex court, however, said the matter of compensation for the delayed possession would be dispensed at a later stage of the hearing.
Builders to pay 12% interest on delayed projects
- Sources said the government will notify rules for the implementation of the new Real Estate Act, making it mandatory for builders to pay 12% interest to buyers if projects are delayed.
- The new rules will also see the setting up of a real-estate regulator.
- It will first be implemented in Chandigarh, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Lakshadweep.
Full refund for buyers in delayed projects from 2017
- Cracking down further on delayed real estate projects, the government has stated that from 2017, buyers will receive a full refund with 10.9% interest if they are not given possession of the property on time.
- The Centre issued the 'Standard House Purchase Agreement' which builders will have to sign with all the clients.
- The refund in delayed projects would be done within 45 days.
Supertech to deposit ₹10 crore with SC
- Real estate developer Supertech has been asked to deposit ₹10 crore with the Supreme Court, to safeguard buyers in their litigated Emerald project in Noida.
- Two years ago, the Allahabad HC had ordered its demolition over allegations of having flouted fire safety norms; Supertech has challenged the order.
- The SC said that "Purchasers should not be kept in illusion."