Bombay Court Orders ₹28 Lakh Refund in Real Estate Dispute: Broken Promises Exposed!

In a complex real estate dispute, the Bombay City Civil Court has ordered the Defendants to refund ₹28, 00,000 to the Plaintiff, citing unfulfilled agreements and the prolonged financial burden on the Plaintiff. The case revolves around two disputed flats in Mumbai’s Tilak Nagar area, with sharp arguments presented by Advocate Aditya Pratap.

Advocate Aditya Pratap for the Plaintiff: A Tale of Broken Promises

Advocate Aditya Pratap, representing the Plaintiff, argued that his client was left in limbo after paying ₹28,00,000 in 2011 to purchase Flat No.1 from the Defendants. Highlighting the details of the transaction, Mr. Pratap emphasized:

1. The Plaintiff had acquired booking rights from a third party and made significant payments via RTGS, supported by documented receipts.
2. Despite the reservation letter issued in 2011, construction of Flat No.1 never commenced, and the defendants failed to secure the necessary permissions.
3. In 2017, the Defendants offered a substitute property, Flat No.2, but at a steeply increased price of ₹81, 27,000 well above the original agreement.
4. Advocate Pratap underscored the Defendants’ failure to fulfill their obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), leaving the Plaintiff at a disadvantage after parting with a substantial sum. He passionately urged the Court to protect the Plaintiff’s interests and secure the return of the ₹28,00,000 paid.

Arguments advanced by the Defendants Advocate:

Countering these claims, Advocate representing the Defendants, argued that their inability to deliver Flat No.1 was due to circumstances beyond their control.

The Court’s Verdict: Financial Restitution Ordered

After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the Court found that:

1. The Defendants failed to deliver on their promise to construct and transfer Flat No.1, as their development rights had been terminated.
2. No valid agreement existed for the sale of Flat No.2, as the MOU remained unsigned by the Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff had paid ₹28, 00,000 in good faith but was left without property or resolution for nearly a decade.

Recognizing the Plaintiff’s financial loss and prolonged distress, the Court directed the Defendants to deposit ₹28, 00,000 with the Court within two months, under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

In a complex real estate dispute, the Bombay City Civil Court has ordered the Defendants to refund ₹28, 00,000 to the Plaintiff, citing unfulfilled agreements and the prolonged financial burden on the Plaintiff. The case revolves around two disputed flats in Mumbai’s Tilak Nagar area, with sharp arguments presented by Advocate Aditya Pratap.

Advocate Aditya Pratap for the Plaintiff: A Tale of Broken Promises

Advocate Aditya Pratap, representing the Plaintiff, argued that his client was left in limbo after paying ₹28,00,000 in 2011 to purchase Flat No.1 from the Defendants. Highlighting the details of the transaction, Mr. Pratap emphasized:

1. The Plaintiff had acquired booking rights from a third party and made significant payments via RTGS, supported by documented receipts.
2. Despite the reservation letter issued in 2011, construction of Flat No.1 never commenced, and the defendants failed to secure the necessary permissions.
3. In 2017, the Defendants offered a substitute property, Flat No.2, but at a steeply increased price of ₹81, 27,000 well above the original agreement.
4. Advocate Pratap underscored the Defendants’ failure to fulfill their obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), leaving the Plaintiff at a disadvantage after parting with a substantial sum. He passionately urged the Court to protect the Plaintiff’s interests and secure the return of the ₹28,00,000 paid.

Arguments advanced by the Defendants Advocate:

Countering these claims, Advocate representing the Defendants, argued that their inability to deliver Flat No.1 was due to circumstances beyond their control.

The Court’s Verdict: Financial Restitution Ordered

After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the Court found that:

1. The Defendants failed to deliver on their promise to construct and transfer Flat No.1, as their development rights had been terminated.
2. No valid agreement existed for the sale of Flat No.2, as the MOU remained unsigned by the Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff had paid ₹28, 00,000 in good faith but was left without property or resolution for nearly a decade.

Recognizing the Plaintiff’s financial loss and prolonged distress, the Court directed the Defendants to deposit ₹28, 00,000 with the Court within two months, under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.