23 September 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law  

During the proceedings, senior advocate K. Parameshwar represented the developer, and senior advocate Rekha Palli represented the purchaser. The court was told that a joint inspection had already been conducted earlier, as per the court's August 11, 2025 order. Nevertheless, the parties did not agree: whereas the purchaser had insisted that the flat needed to be repaired extensively, the developer argued that only patch-up work was required.

 

 

Another key area of contention was with regard to the unit size. The provisional allotment letter that was sent to the buyer had noted the area to be 1,626 square feet, subject to variation. The developer claimed that the super built-up area had grown by around 140 square feet, qualifying it to seek an additional payment of around ?40 lakh. This stand was rejected by the buyer.

To put an end to the controversy, the Bench mandated architect Subhrangshu Gupta, who is empanelled with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, to carry out an independent inspection. The court instructed him to liaise with both sides—the buyer, Neerja, and Arpit Sharma, the representative of the company—to finalize a date of inspection, preferably by October 3, 2025.

exercised to draw attention to any other material observations in relation to the issue. His report is to be filed with the court by October 8, 2025.