NARESH MEHTA vs. MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS (2019)
LEGAL SUBJECTS - Real Estate Law, Statutory Interpretation, Consumer Protection Law, Administrative Law, Contract Law
CITATION OF THE CASE -
(2023) 04 NCDRC CK 0089
FACTS -
Naresh Mehta and his wife booked a plot in the "Palm Garden" housing project developed by M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited. They paid a substantial amount towards the total sale consideration, expecting timely possession of the plot and execution of the buyer’s agreement. However, despite paying approximately ₹42,14,851 out of the total amount of sale consideration ₹51,25,000, the developer failed to deliver possession or execute the buyer’s agreement within the promised time. The complainants also alleged that the developer imposed arbitrary and additional charges, such as Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC), which were not part of the original agreement. The developer, on the other hand, cited delays due to government approvals and other force majeure circumstances, and claimed the complainants were at fault for not executing necessary agreements.
ISSUES -
Was the developer deficient in service by failing to deliver possession of the plot and execute the buyer’s agreement within the stipulated time? Whether the developer could justify the delay in delivery of possession on the grounds of force majeure or pending government approvals?
DECISION BY COURT -
The State Commission found in favor of Naresh Mehta and his wife, holding that the developer was deficient in service for not delivering possession of the plot and not executing the buyer’s agreement despite receiving a substantial amount of the sale consideration. The imposition of IDC and other additional charges, which were not part of the original contract or application form, was held to be an unfair trade practice. The Commission noted that the acknowledgment letter introducing these charges was issued years after the original agreement, indicating mala fide intent. The developer’s arguments regarding force majeure and delays due to government permissions were rejected, as the burden of proving such circumstances was not met. The Commission emphasized that the developer failed to produce convincing evidence or timelines regarding project completion. The complainants were entitled to possession of the plot without the imposition of arbitrary charges, and the developer was directed to execute the buyer’s agreement and hand over possession. Compensation for delay and relief from additional charges were also granted.
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE -
a) The case of Naresh Mehta vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure (26 March 2019) predates the full operationalization of Maharashtra RERA (MahaRERA), which became fully active post-2017. Section 18, Addresses liability for delayed possession & Section 12, Mandates accurate project details in advertisements, including timelines under (MahaRERA) were included. While the original decision was under consumer protection laws, the case’s subject matter (delays, unfair practices) directly relates to MahaRERA’s core objectives.
Compiled by Adv. Bincy Benny, Research and Training Admin , ATPA.
