https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282973 The complainants sought compensation for delay in possession of a residential apartment. The Commission held the opposite party liable for delay and directed payment of compensation at 10% per annum from the committed possession date until actual possession. Unfair trade practices were found due to one-sided clauses in the agreement. The opposite party's justifications for delay were deemed insufficient. The complainants were awarded a cost of litigation. The opposite party was instructed to complete construction and offer possession by a specified date, failing which execution could be sought under the Consumer Protection Act. en-us Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2019 16:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282973 The complainants sought compensation for delay in possession of a residential apartment. The Commission held the opposite party liable for delay and directed payment of compensation at 10% per annum from the committed possession date until actual possession. Unfair trade practices were found due to one-sided clauses in the agreement. The opposite party's justifications for delay were deemed insufficient. The complainants were awarded a cost of litigation. The opposite party was instructed to complete construction and offer possession by a specified date, failing which execution could be sought under the Consumer Protection Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282973