Comments
I have bought flat in DLF Capital Greens, Phase-I, Motinagar, Delhi. Almost all the amount paid in time and wherever there is a delay penalty levied also paid to them. They are not ready to provide revised plan, which they claim only will be given at the time of possession. I haven't paid the increased area demand. Received mail from Daizy-Kambri dt:20/10/2014 where as the justification given is not digestible and claiming that revised plan only will be given (justification only given) at the time of possession which is again against the law.
Where the project is delayed by few years and we need to wait for possession and the date of possession is uncertain, I don, t understand how they can lure you with these kind of demands. Over and above they started charging interest on delayed amount (only for this demand) which amounting close to 2.00 lacs on demand of close to 4.00 lacs.,
Hope many of you is going through the same situation and holding the payment.
Where the project is delayed by few years and we need to wait for possession and the date of possession is uncertain, I don, t understand how they can lure you with these kind of demands. Over and above they started charging interest on delayed amount (only for this demand) which amounting close to 2.00 lacs on demand of close to 4.00 lacs.,
Hope many of you is going through the same situation and holding the payment.
Dlf GARDENCITY OMR CHENNAI
I have paid the full money including registration charges for dlf. The project is delayed by 4 years. I am not getting possession and registration. No response from dlf for phones or mails. No compensation for delay.29%
Complaints
256
Pending
0
Resolved
74
View all 256 DLF reviews & complaints
View all DLF contact information
n During the trial, DLF threatened cancellation of allotments to the complainants, which the CCI stopped through an interim order on September 20, 2010.
n DLF tried to get out of the trap by challenging the jurisdiction of CCI before the Competition Appellate Tribunal, but failed as COMPAT directed the CCI to proceed.
n DLF raised the issue of CCI’s jurisdiction by pointing out that the case was arising from contracts signed by the allottees in the year 2006 etc, before the enabling provision in the Competition Act came into force in May, 2009.
n DLF tried to suppress the investigation report by the director general by filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. The court did not oblige DLF, but directed CCI to allow DLF to inspect the report.
DLF vigorously argued throughout the case that it was not in a dominant position as defined under the Act, looking for various loopholes in the Act to pull off an escape. This is despite various pronouncements and postulations in its annual report and at different fora, where it claims to be the largest property developer in the country and boasts of being the dominant player. It is only when such information was used against DLF that it started crying foul