Real-estate firms today got a rap on their knuckles from the Supreme Court for making tall claims to purchasers which remained unfulfilled due to inordinate delay in completing the housing projects.
“In this country, builders have developed an attitude to make commitments to the purchasers and not fulfill them by delaying the projects,” a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said.
The apex court’s observation came after real estate firm Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt Ltd said it will give flats to 70 home buyers, who are before the court, by December 17.
“They (home buyers) do not have patience and trust in you and need refund. Money should go back to them and they should not suffer,” the bench also comprising Justices Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar said.
The bench, also pulled up the realty firm for seeking time to deposit additional Rs 10 crore, asking “why do you get into all this business when you can’t pay back the money? You have to give back the money to home buyers.” Senior advocate Subramanian Prasad, appearing for the firm, said that as directed by the court, the company has deposited Rs 12 crore with the Supreme Court registry.
The bench asked Supreme Court registry to disburse Rs 12 crore to the 70 home buyers on pro-rata basis after proper identification.
The court also noted the submission of advocate M L Lahoty, appearing for the home buyers, that the principal amount was Rs 22 crore and not Rs 15 crore as the impression was given on the last date of hearing.
Lahoty said the affidavit filed by the firm before apex consumer forum said that the principal amount was Rs 22 crore and with interest, it would be around Rs 36 crore.
Prasad said if refund is given to the 70 flat buyers, then over 800 home buyers will come seeking refund from the developers which do not have money.
Lahoty contended that home buyers were interested in refund as over 95 per cent of the money was paid to the developer in 2007 and they had committed to hand over the flats by 2011.
The bench asked the firm to deposit Rs 10 crore by December 10 with Supreme Court registry and posted the matter for further hearing on December 14.