THE BOMBAY DYEING AND … VS ASHOK NARANG
AND AN\
In this case, the Appellant, The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd was the builder-
promoter whereas Mr. Ashok Narang and others were the allotees/buyers of the flats. It was agreed
by the Parties that the possession would be delivered by 2017 at a 20:80 scheme consideration (20%
initially and 80% at the time of delivery), in which the Respondents had already made payment of
20% in 2012-13 inclusive of tax and premium. The appellants failed to deliver the flats for possession
on the stipulated time and extended it by 2 years. Thus, the Respondents filed a complaint u/s 31 of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“2016 Act”) before the Authority citing
breach u/s 12 read with S. 18 of the 2016 Act seeking cancellation of the allotment and also a refund
of the amount they had paid. The Authority did not pass any order regarding the refund stating that
S. 12 did not apply retrospectively, and also that the cancellation should be done as per the
allotment agreement. Further when appealed before the Appellate authority, it found that S. 12 of
the 2016 Act had a retroactive operation and directed the respondent to refund with due interest
and also ordered cancellation of the allotments. Consequently, the Appellants approached the
Bombay High Court wherein the Appellant-counsel submitted that the provisions of the 2016 Act
were prospective in operation and that the written agreement for sale was also absent due to which
no liabilities could be imposed upon it as u/s 18. To this, the Respondent-counsel contended that the
application of the 2016 Act to an ongoing project itself indicated that the provisions were quasi-
retroactive in nature. Also, regarding the absence of a written agreement, it was argued that the
Appellant could not be permitted to raise a new contention for the first time in the second appeal,
thus it had waived the right to raise any such claims and that could not be allowed to approbate and
then reprobate later on. The Court pointed out that no one should be made to wait indefinitely for
delivery of possession and thereby held that there was a deficiency of service and disposed of the
appeals with no order as to costs.
Case Study: The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Ashok Narang and Anr.
Scenario:
Parties Involved:
The Appellant: The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd. (the builder-promoter)
The Respondents: Mr. Ashok Narang and others (allotees/buyers of flats)
Agreement:
The parties agreed that possession of the flats would be delivered by 2017 under a 20:80 scheme
(20% initially and 80% at delivery).
Respondents had already paid 20% in 2012-13, inclusive of tax and premium.
Breach:
The appellants failed to deliver the flats within the stipulated time and extended it by 2 years.
Respondents filed a complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (2016
Act), seeking cancellation of allotment and a refund.
Legal Proceedings:
The Authority initially did not order a refund, citing that Section 12 of the 2016 Act did not apply
retrospectively.
The Appellate authority found Section 12 retroactively applicable and directed a refund with interest,
along with cancellation of allotments.
The Appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court.
Arguments:
Appellant-counsel: 2016 Act provisions were prospective; no liability without a written agreement.
Respondent-counsel: 2016 Act quasi-retroactive; waiver of right to raise new claims.
Court Decision:
No one should wait indefinitely for possession.
Deficiency of service; appeals disposed of with no order as to costs.
Solution:
The Bombay High Court upheld the importance of consumer protection.
The 2016 Act applied to ongoing projects, indicating quasi-retroactivity.
Written agreement absence didn’t absolve liability.
Lesson: Businesses must prioritize consumers’ long-term interests, adhere to ethics, and fulfill
responsibilities.
This case underscores the significance of consumer protection laws and the need to safeguard
consumers’ rights. It also emphasizes that no one should be left waiting indefinitely for possession.
Businesses should prioritize consumer welfare and adhere to ethical practices. The Bombay High
Court’s decision reinforces the importance of timely delivery and accountability.
