The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) rejected the contention of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd (SICCL) that it could not handover the property to an Indore-based couple due to certain clearances having not been given to the company.
The consumer body, which also imposed a litigation cost of Rs 10,000 on the firm, said there was "no justification" for the "abnormal delay" of four years on the part of SICCL which had not delivered the bungalow to the couple since the expiry of the due date in 2011.
"It is also not known what were the reasons for statutory clearances not being granted in time. If the delay in grant of statutory clearances occurred on account of deficiencies or short-comings on the part of respondents (SICCL and Sahara Prime City Ltd), it cannot take any advantage of such delays.
According to the complaint filed by the couple - Sanjay Kumar Airen and Anita Airen - they were allotted a residential bungalow in Sahara Prime City Ltd and SICCL's housing project Sahara City Homes at Agra-Bombay Bypass Road near Indore on May 28, 2008 after a payment of Rs 1.11 crore.
Also Read
The NCDRC, while noting that SEBI-Sahara refund case is already in Supreme Court, also said, "If there is an embargo on disbursement of the cash available with the SICCL or the amount which it has to deposit in SEBI Sahara Account, the SICCL will make disbursement only subject to the Supreme Court granting permission for such disbursement, to complainants."
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court tightened the noose around Sahara group chief Subrata Roy while refusing to extend time beyond February 6 for him to deposit Rs 600 crore in SEBI's account, saying he would have to go to jail in case of a default.