mutual settlement is always bilateral and not unilateral

 

In the Matter of Sharad Avasthi V. Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.140 of 2019 before THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL it was held that "mutual settlement is always bilateral and not unilateral. The affidavit-cum-undertaking given by one party cannot constitute the mutual settlement."

the allottees will not lose their right to claim interest for delayed possession merely on the ground that the conveyance deed had already been executed

 Amit Gupta Vs. Athena Infrastructure Ltd.Appeal No.79 of 2020 in Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal,

The complaint filed by the appellant-allottee for grant of interest for delayed possession was dismissed by Ld. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram The only ground taken in the order is that as the conveyance deed had already been executed, so the complaint was not maintainable.

It was held by the Appellate tribunal that 

"In our view the approach of the Ld. Authority is erroneous. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and others vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (now known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.) and others 2020(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 544 has laid down as under:-

“The developer in the present case has undertaken to provide a service in the nature of developing residential flats with certain amenities and remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. Consequently, we are unable to subscribe to the view of the NCDRC that flat purchasers who obtained possession or executed Deeds of Conveyance have lost their right to make a claim for compensation for the delayed handing over of the flats.”

In view of the aforesaid ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the allottees will not lose their right to claim interest for delayed possession merely on the ground that the conveyance deed had already been executed. The execution of the conveyance deed cannot extinguish the cause of action which had already accrued to the allottee due to delay in delivery of possession. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Authority is not sustainable. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 19.12.2019 is hereby set aside.

Plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance where the plaintiff has done substantial acts in consequence of a contract/agreement to sell

 In Jinesh Kumar Jain v. Iris Paintal, MANU/DE/3387/2012, the DELHI HIGH Court held that 

the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance where the plaintiff has done substantial acts in consequence of a contract/agreement to sell. Substantial acts obviously would mean and include payment of substantial amounts of money. The plaintiff may have paid 50% or more of the consideration or having paid a lesser consideration he could be in possession pursuant to the agreement to sell or otherwise is in the possession of the subject property or other substantial acts have been performed by the plaintiff, and acts which can be said to be substantial acts under Section 20(3) of Specific Relief Act. However, where the acts are not substantial i.e. merely 5% or 10% etc. of the consideration is paid i.e. less than substantial consideration is paid, (and for which a rough benchmark can be taken as 50% of the consideration), and/or plaintiff is not in possession of the subject land, the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance.

SC - Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice

 Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs (1988(4) SCC 402), wherein the  Apex Court observed: 

 "9. Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant."

in The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Gujarat (1975(2) SCC 175), it was held that

"...The right of appeal is the creature of a statute. Without a statutory provision creating such a right the person aggrieved is not entitled to file an appeal.

the terms of registered document can be altered, rescinded or varied only by subsequent registered document and not otherwise

 S. Saktivel(Dead) Vs. M. Venugopal Pillai & Others, (2000) 7 SCC 104 wherein the Supreme Court with reference to Section 92 proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act held thus:

the terms of the registered document can be altered, rescinded, or varied only by subsequent registered document and not otherwise