UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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