Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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.

Similar News