S.

No Case Title Held

1. Shri Pradeep - Considered the view of NGT regarding
Narula & Anr., vs delay in the delivery of the possession.
M/S Granite Gate - Gave compensation @10% PA to the
Properties Pvt buyer
(2016) - Builder did not use money obtained
from the buyers completely in the
project thus it amounts unfair trade
and practice
-
2. Chand Rani vs - Time is not an essence of contract in
Kamal Rani the general law but if it is mentioned
(1992) in the contract then it becomes
essence of the contract
- Even if time is not essence it is to be
performed within reasonable period of
time
3. Jitendra Balani - none of the reasons given by the
vs M/S. Unitech Builder for the delay, such as non-
Ltd (2016) availability of construction material or
labour, were supported with sufficient
evidence.
- Builder is a big brand thus it is easy
for him to arrange bricks and other
material resources.
- Economic recession was not there in
the country
- Buyer signed with almost no
bargaining power and under the
threat of loosing the money
- Directed builder to give flat within
stipulated period with an interest of
12%. If further there is delay then
interest shall be 18%
- Buyer does not want flat thus builder
has to refund the money @18% from
the date of payment.

4. Ghaziabad - Interest @18% constantly given the

Development commission is bad in law.
Authority vs Commission has to look over the facts
Balbir Singh and circumstances of the case to have
 (2004) a grant of 18% of interest. The interest
may vary from situation to situation.
It is not settled that interest has to be
paid @18% only.
5. Lucknow - Scope of service was widened as
Development written in the Consumer Protection
Authority vs M.K Act.
Gupta (1994) - Service includes inferior quality of
material used for building the flat or
property.
- Consumer has every right to claim
regarding the same in front of the
National Consumer Forum.
- Service includes delay in delivery of
possession of the building.
6. Faqir Chand - Builder comes under the preview of
Gulati vs Uppal the consumer protection act.
Agencies Private - They have to provide service that is
Limited not deficient in nature.
- Building contrary to the specifications
can make builder liable
- Failure to get Completion certificate is
also deficiency in the service
7. Manju Bhatia vs - Buyers were not told about the illegal
NDMC constructions done by the builder.
The building was demolished. Builder
liable to pay the damages due to
which buyers have suffered.
8. Priyanka Estate - Builder has not complied with the
vs State of Assam laws and regulations for the erection
of the building.
- He has taken money from the buyers.
Builders tends to use their power
against buyers for the building.
- Builder liable to refund the money to
buyer
- The unauthorized building of the
buyers cant be converted into
authorized building. It will be against
the law
9. EEsha Ekta - The remedy available to the buyers of
Appartments vs the unauthorized flat is to sue the
 Municipal builder or the lease holder who has
Corporation of sold to them the flats about which
Mumbai they were not aware.
- Buyers can claim damages for the
unauthorized construction of the flat
by the builder without intimation to
the buyers
- The unauthorized building of the
buyers cant be converted into
authorized building. It will be against
the law
10. Jaypee Greens - No stay was provided by NGT, There
was no shortage of labor or anything
- Super area needs to increased with
the consent
- There has not been single instance
where it can be shown that super area
has increase
11. UP Apartment - No change in the layout plan can be
Act,2010 made without the consent of the
buyers
12. Rera Section - Change in the layout
14(2) - Section 6 specifies about the force
majeur