JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS EXECUTED FOR APARTMENTS AND LAYOUTS – UNDER REVISION – STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT –


THE STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT HAS DETECTED TAX EVASION IN THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE LAND LORD AND THE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS AND HAS REOPENED THE FILES BY ISSUING NOTICES TO THE CONCERNED LANDLORDS AND THE BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS.

IT IS FELT THAT THE DUTY LIABILITY ALONG WITH THE FINE WILL BE IN TUNE OF CRORES FOR THESE PROJECTS, THE BUYERS MIGHT ALSO FEEL THE HEAT OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

EVEN THOUGH, SOME SUITS ARE BEING CONTESTED IN THE HIGH COURT, BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE REACHED ITS FINALITY AND WITH THE FRESH NOTICES, THE SITUATION FOR THE DEVELOPERS AS WELL AS LAND LORDS APPEAR TO BE VERY GRIM.

AKRAMA-SAKRAMA SCHEME MAY BE MODIFIED


THE MUCH AWAITED REGULARISATION SCHEME MIGHT BE REVIEWED AND MODIFIED TO COVER THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF DEVIATION, VIOLATION AND IRREGULARITIES UNDER KLR ACT, KMC ACT AND KTCP ACT WITH A VIEW TO SLAP A HEFTY PENALTY, THAT MIGHT DISCOURAGE THE FUTURE VIOLATIONS AND PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED REVENUE TO THE MUNICIPALITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

 

SALE AGREEMENTS


ONE SIDED AGREEMENTS-UNFAIR AGREEMENTS-BIASED AGREEMENTS, ILLEGAL AGREEMENTS, UNFAIR CLAUSES – BY DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS

IS YOUR BUILDER/DEVELOPER/MARKETING AGENCY COMPELLING YOU TO SIGN OR ENTER INTO SALE AGREEMENTS ON CERTAIN CLAUSES WHICH ARE AGAINST YOUR INTERESTS OR IN FAVOUR OF THE DEVELOPER OR UNFAIR OR ONE SIDED AGREEMENTS OR THE BUILDER DOES NOT AGREE TO MODIFY THE ILLEGAL CLAUSE AND IT IS IN TOTAL INTEREST OF ONE OF THE PARTIES (BUILDER) ?

YOU HAVE A SAY NOW!!!!

THE CCI HAS COME OUT WITH HEAVY PENALTY AGAINST DLF REALTY AND FINED THEM TO THE TUNE OF RS630 CRORES.

DLF FINED BY CCI FOR HAVING UNFAIR CLAUSES IN ITS SALE AGREEMENTS TO THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTIES


THE ORDER

The facts of this case and the conduct of the OP-1,

as discussed above, particularly the size and resources of OP -1 a n d the duration during

which this abuse has continued to the advantage

of DLF Ltd. and to the disadvantage of consumers, warrant imposition 
of a heavy penalty. Keeping, in view the totality of the facts and 
circumstances of the case, the Commission considers it appropriate 
to impose penalty at the rate of 7% of the average of the turnover for 
the last three preceding financial years on OP-1. Therefore, in 
exercise of powers under section 27 (b) of the Act, the Commission 
imposes penalty on DLF Ltd. as computed below:
Turnover for year ended 31.03.2009 Rs 10,035.39 crores
Turnover for year ended 31.03.2010 Rs 7,422.87 crores
Turnover for year ended 31.03.2011 Rs 9,560.57 crores
Total Rs 27,018.83 crores
Average (Total ÷ 3) Rs 9006.27 crores
7 % of average Rs 630.43 crores
Penalty rounded off to nearest number Rs 630 crores
(or Rs 6.3 billion)