Disposed

Bhaiya Arvind Kumar v. Jharkhand State Housing Board through Its Managing Director and Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Jan 2020WPC/4508/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed by an allottee challenging a demand notice for compound interest. Finding that the Housing Board had internally decided not to charge compound interest, the court directed the respondent to recalculate the demand. The specific legal issue regarding interest charges was kept open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to recalculate the demand for the house without compound interest.

Bhaiya Arvind Kumar Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board… — Consumer Protection | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4508 of 2014

¶2

Bhaiya Arvind Kumar, S/o Late Badri Nath Sahay, resident of Flat No. M.I.G., M.F.A.-14, Argora Housing Colony, P.O.- Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, Town & District- Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

¶3

-Versus-

¶4

Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, At & P.O.- Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, Town & District- Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) through its Managing Director

¶5

The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, At & P.O.- Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, Town & District- Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)

¶6

The Revenue Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, At & P.O.Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, Town & District- Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)

¶7

The Executive Engineer, Ranchi Division, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, At & P.O.- Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, Town & DistrictRanchi-834002 (Jharkhand) … Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate
	Mr. Naresh Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents	: Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate Mrs. Surabhi, Advocate -----

¶10

08/18.01.2020. At the outset, raising an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board submits that the writ petition is premature.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice dated 22.07.2004 requiring him to deposit Rs.2,35,641/- calculated till 31.08.2004 and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached respondent no.2 by way of Annexures- 6, 7, 8 and 9. He further submits that the calculation appended to demand notice dated 22.07.2004 is apparently incorrect inasmuch as compound interest has been charged on the price of the house though there is no provision in the agreement for the same. He further submits that the calculation provided by the respondent-Jharkhand

¶13

-2-

¶14

State Housing Board discloses different rate of interest on various component which cannot be justified in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision of the Jharkhand State Housing Board in its 40^th meeting dated 07.04.2015 submits that the respondents may be directed to provide a fresh calculation to the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board does not dispute that in its 40^th meeting, the Jharkhand State Housing Board has taken a decision not to charge compound interest.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the order passed by this Court dated 04.02.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 1888 of 2014, it appears that certain decision has been taken, in view of which, the demand notice dated 22.07.2004 is required to be modified. Considering the fact that the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board itself has taken a decision, as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of with direction to respondent no.2 to recalculate the demand for the house allotted to the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner is liable to pay and, if the petitioner makes such payment, the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board shall take necessary steps for registration of the house in the name of the allottee, in accordance with the terms under the Hire Purchase Agreement and its Regulations. The law point raised in this writ petition is kept open.

¶17

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶18

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶19

Ajay/

Bhaiya Arvind Kumar v. Jharkhand State Housing Board through Its Managing Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaiya Arvind Kumar v. Jharkhand State Housing Board through Its Managing Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunj Bihari Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Shah Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Poonam Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ms Om Sai Industries through Its Partner Namely Manish Kumar Vs Forest

Ms Vaishnavi Associates through Its Proprietor Namely Shri Ramakant Sharma Vs Central Coalfields Limited and Ors.

Krishna Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Ors.