Property Allotted In Lieu Of Ancestral Land Left In Pakistan Retains Coparcenary Character; Karta Cannot Gift It Away: Punjab & Haryana HC Bail Applicant Under 'Solemn Obligation' To Disclose Criminal History; Material Suppression Disentitles Discretionary Relief: Orissa High Court Mother Surreptitiously Marrying Away Daughter Without Father’s Knowledge Amount To Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Grants Divorce Time Is Generally Not The Essence Of Contract In Sale Of Immovable Property; Unilateral Notice Cannot Alter Mutually Agreed Terms: Himachal Pradesh High Court Mere Use Of Surname No Defence If Adoption Is Dishonest & Causes Confusion In Pharma Trade: Delhi High Court Restrains 'Reddy Pharmaceuticals' Complainant’s Failure To Provide Specific Loan Details & Evidence Of Parties' Involvement In Ponzi Scheme Rebuts Section 139 NI Act Presumption: Calcutta High Court Statutory Mandate Of Section 17-B: Payment Of Minimum Wages Means Revised Rates From Time To Time, Not Frozen Amount: Delhi High Court Reporting Court Proceedings & Good Faith Complaints To Authorities Not Defamation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Order Appointment Obtained Via Fraud Vitiates Initial Entry; Article 311 Protection Not Available To Such Employees: Allahabad High Court Surviving Spouse’s Elevation To Second In Line Of Succession Not ‘Manifestly Arbitrary’: Bombay High Court Upholds Goa Succession Act Amendments Patent Rights Stand Exhausted Once Components Are Sourced From Authorized Market Dealers; Royalty Cannot Be Calculated On Entire Product: Delhi High Court FCI Cannot Unilaterally Reduce Rent Or Recover 'Excess' Payment Without Landlord's Consent & Notice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Judicial Sanctity Cannot Be Given To Adulterous Relationships; No Habeas Corpus For Married Woman Living With Husband: Himachal Pradesh High Court Recoveries From Open Spaces Without Proof Of Concealment Don't Qualify Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Supreme Court Large Time Gap In 'Last Seen Together' Theory Snaps Chain Of Circumstances; Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Non-Recovery Of Mobile Phone Or Video Not Fatal To Criminal Intimidation Charge If Victim's Testimony Is Credible: Supreme Court Threat To Upload Private Video Online Violates Woman's Sexual Autonomy, Amounts To 'Imputing Unchastity' Under Sec 506 IPC: Supreme Court Intention To Kill Essential For Section 307 IPC Conviction; Nature Of Injury Not Sole Determinant: Supreme Court Intention To Commit Murder Cannot Be Presumed Merely Because Injury Was Dangerous To Life: Supreme Court Alters Conviction To Section 325 IPC Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused Who Absconded For 42 Days Post-Bail Revocation; Says Contumacious Conduct Bars Fresh Relief High Court Cannot Grant Fresh Bail By Ignoring Supreme Court’s Earlier Order Cancelling Bail Without Change In Circumstances: Supreme Court Mutation Entries Supported By Registered Sale Deeds For Long Period Relevant To Establish Possession: Supreme Court Allegation Of Fraud In Registered Documents Must Be Supported By Foundational Facts; Adverse Inference Drawn If Plaintiff Avoids Witness Box: Supreme Court Commercial Courts Must Assign Reasons For Not Passing Conditional Orders In Summary Judgment Applications: Calcutta High Court Friendly Loan Without Commercial Consideration Not A 'Legally Enforceable Debt' Under Section 138 NI Act: Jharkhand High Court Commercial Courts Act: ₹3 Lakh ‘Specified Value’ Amendment Is Self-Operative; No Separate Govt Notification Required: Andhra Pradesh HC Full Bench Drug Inspector’s Prosecution Voids If Specific Area Of Jurisdiction Is Not Notified In Official Gazette: Kerala High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Photostat Copies Of Sale Deeds Not Admissible As Additional Evidence To Fill Gaps In Trial Stage: Punjab & Haryana HC

Consumer Have Absolute Right to Terminate Agreement on Delayed Possession: Supreme Court Overrules NCDRC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, in its recent judgement, has set aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), reaffirming the appellants' absolute right to terminate the agreement due to delayed possession by Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. The apex court emphasized the binding nature of contractual terms and the parties' inability to unilaterally alter these terms.

The appellants, Venkataraman Krishnamurthy and another, had entered into an agreement with Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of an apartment in Mumbai. As per the agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered by 30th June 2017, including a grace period of one year. The appellants approached the NCDRC, alleging non-delivery of possession and seeking a refund of the amount paid, along with interest and compensation. The NCDRC, in its order, allowed the respondent to deliver possession with certain conditions and offered the appellants a refund with deductions. Dissatisfied with the NCDRC's decision, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court critically analyzed the clauses of the agreement, particularly focusing on the agreed terms for possession and the consequences of delay. The Court noted that the respondent failed to deliver possession within the agreed period, including the grace period. The Court observed that the respondent could not unilaterally change the agreed terms of the contract and that the appellants' right to terminate the agreement under Clause 11.3 was absolute. The apex court criticized the NCDRC's decision, stating that it effectively rewrote the agreement's terms, which was not within its power or jurisdiction.

The Court also addressed the issue of the refund amount and the interest rate, upholding the agreement's stipulation of a 12% per annum interest rate on the refund.

The Supreme Court ordered Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. to refund the deposited amount of ₹2,25,31,148 in twelve equal monthly installments with 12% p.a. interest. The first installment is to be payable on 5th April 2024. The Court's decision reasserts the sanctity of contractual terms and the parties' rights therein.

Date of Decision: 22nd February 2024

Venkataraman Krishnamurthy And Another vs Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.

Latest Legal News