From : http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140514/cth2.htm
The Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Mohali, has directed GEE City Builders, Chandigarh, to refund a security amount of Rs 10,000 deposited by Sukhjit Singh Pasricha of Sector 70 here and to pay him interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum since the date of deposit till payment.
The builder was also directed to pay Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation.
Pasricha had booked a flat with GEE City Builders and, besides other payments, deposited a maintenance security of Rs 10,000. The flat was allotted to him and he paid the entire sale amount thereof.
The maintenance security was not adjusted or refunded by the builder to the applicant. The maintenance of the colony was handed over to the Residents Welfare Association with effect from May 1, 2011, but the maintenance security was retained by the builder, upon which the present application was moved.
The builder opposed the application claiming that in view of the arbitration clause and the agreement between the parties that all disputes and differences shall be settled in Chandigarh, the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) had no jurisdiction to try the application. It was also claimed that in view of a letter received from the GMADA, the maintenance security was to be handed over to the Residents Welfare Association and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the refund thereof.
The Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), headed by Jagroop Singh Mahal, held that it was not bound to refer the dispute to arbitration because the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to these proceedings. It was also held that the Legal Services Authorities Act does not empower the parties to oust the jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) and therefore, the application was tryable by it.
On merits, it was found that Rs 10,000 had been received by the builder as maintenance security and it had no right to retain the amount. The amount had not been transferred to the Residents Welfare Association either and the maintenance charges were being paid by the applicant direct to the association out of his own pocket.
The builder was, therefore, directed to refund Rs 10,000 with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum since April 1, 2006, the date of deposit, till the amount was paid to the applicant. The builder was also directed to pay Rs 5,000 as costs of litigation. It was ordered that if the amount was not paid within 15 days, the builder would be liable to pay a penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of nine per cent per annum.
REFUND OF MAINTENANCE SECURITY
PLA penalises builder
Mohali, May 13PLA penalises builder
The Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Mohali, has directed GEE City Builders, Chandigarh, to refund a security amount of Rs 10,000 deposited by Sukhjit Singh Pasricha of Sector 70 here and to pay him interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum since the date of deposit till payment.
The builder was also directed to pay Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation.
Pasricha had booked a flat with GEE City Builders and, besides other payments, deposited a maintenance security of Rs 10,000. The flat was allotted to him and he paid the entire sale amount thereof.
The maintenance security was not adjusted or refunded by the builder to the applicant. The maintenance of the colony was handed over to the Residents Welfare Association with effect from May 1, 2011, but the maintenance security was retained by the builder, upon which the present application was moved.
The builder opposed the application claiming that in view of the arbitration clause and the agreement between the parties that all disputes and differences shall be settled in Chandigarh, the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) had no jurisdiction to try the application. It was also claimed that in view of a letter received from the GMADA, the maintenance security was to be handed over to the Residents Welfare Association and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the refund thereof.
The Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), headed by Jagroop Singh Mahal, held that it was not bound to refer the dispute to arbitration because the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to these proceedings. It was also held that the Legal Services Authorities Act does not empower the parties to oust the jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) and therefore, the application was tryable by it.
On merits, it was found that Rs 10,000 had been received by the builder as maintenance security and it had no right to retain the amount. The amount had not been transferred to the Residents Welfare Association either and the maintenance charges were being paid by the applicant direct to the association out of his own pocket.
The builder was, therefore, directed to refund Rs 10,000 with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum since April 1, 2006, the date of deposit, till the amount was paid to the applicant. The builder was also directed to pay Rs 5,000 as costs of litigation. It was ordered that if the amount was not paid within 15 days, the builder would be liable to pay a penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of nine per cent per annum.
0 comments:
Post a Comment