Developers under Belaire Owners’ Association Scanner after DLF Episode
Various projects of large and well-known developers stretching from Greater Noida to Gurgaon are under the scanner of Belaire Owners’ Association after Competition Commission of India (CCI) slapped a penalty of Rs 630 crore on DLF for “unfair trade practices” and “abuse of market dominance”.
According to the builder-buyer agreement in the Belaire case: “The company reserves the right to correct, modify, amend or change all the annexures attached to this agreement, and also annexures which are indicated to be tentative… as deemed necessary by the company at its sole discretion.”
“It can’t be said all developers have copied the agreement from DLF, but there can be no denying that all agreements are loaded towards the developers,” said R R Singh, director general of the National Real Estate Development Council. According to Singh, there is a need for a standard agreement document.
Business Standard
Belaire case, Builder-buyer agreement, CCI, Competition Commission of India, Developers, DLF, DLF Episode, Greater Noida, Gurgaon, National Real Estate Development Council, New Delhi, Noida, Penalty on DLF, Well-known developers
‘GAP’ – To Be Read “GPA”.
For comments in detail, browses the related Blogs @swamilook
This refers to the above referred published article @http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/rwas-seek-belaire-owners-help-to-takebig-realtors/447657/ .
It is not just the default in timely completion complained of , but there are any number of other irregularities persistently perpetrated and callously indulged in by many of the builders/sellers of apartments. That is a scenario commonly noted in almost every state/city. They choose to do so, being well aware of, but in blatant disregard/violation of, the numerous mandatory requirements of the applicable special law, impacting / impairing in no small way the very lawful rights and interests crucial to the purchasers.
As rightly said by Mr Singh, prescription of a ‘standard agreement document’ might serve as an effective corrective step; and if mandated to be followed, also enforced rigorously, might go a long way in setting things right to a great extent. Such a step is not merely the need but cries aloud requiring to be taken on a war footing. In fact, this is a significant suggestion included in the feedback comments sent to the Housing Ministry long ago, in reference to the Regulatory Bill, still remaining to be enacted.
Further, Singh said, “A proper scrutiny is possible only if the case reaches the Supreme Court.” That, however, cannot be accepted as the right or sane approach expected from the NREDC. For, what has been grossly omitted to be taken a note of is that, the constitutional responsibility to think of and resort to proper proactive steps / course (s) action rests, wholly and solely, with the concerned governments, both at the centre and the states, and the respective executive authorities ; certainly not with the judiciary / SC. For useful clues and guidance , one may look up the Judgment of the SC delivered, after decades, against the till then ongoing practice of GAP for effecting transfer of property, in daring and heinous violation of the ell known laws on registration, stamp duty, so on.