SC asks SICCL to deposit 3.5 crore for delay in delivery of flats
The Supreme Court on Monday directed Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited (SICCL) to deposit Rs 3.5 crore to pay back investors who had bought flats in its Gurgaon project but did not receive possession on time.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited (SICCL) to deposit Rs 3.5 crore to pay back investors who had bought flats in its Gurgaon project but did not receive possession on time.
"It is directed that the appellant (SICCL) shall deposit Rs 3.5 crore before registry of this court," a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U U Lalit said while directing the firm to deposit the amount.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for SICCL, said the construction of its Gurgaon project "Sahara Grace" was completed on time and the delay in award of possession of flats was only "procedural".
He said the possession of the flats has already been handed to the owners where they have been residing.
The matter has now been posted for final disposal after six weeks.
The order came on an appeal filed by SICCL against order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had asked the firm to pay compensation at 12 per cent to the Sahara Grace Consumers Grievance Association for delayed possession of flats.
The NCDRC in its August 2015 had also directed SICCL to pay Rs 2 lakh to the flat buyers for the mental agony and harassment suffered by them.
Sahara Grace was a project proposed to be developed in Gurgaon by SICCL in 2003 and all the apartments were to be delivered between April 2006 to March 2007.
SICCL, however, failed to complete the project and deliver possession of the apartments to the flat buyers as the occupancy certificate for the flats was received by them in January 2008 and the possession was finally given in April 2008 to January 2009.
Earlier, real estate firm Unitech Ltd was directed by the apex court to deposit Rs 15 crore principal amount by September-end to pay back investors who had bought flats in its "Unitech Vista" project but had not got possession on time.