Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court

Interest Charge on Balance Amount from Homebuyers in Case of Delayed Possession Unjustified: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order that allowed a developer to charge 9% per annum interest on the balance amount from homebuyers due to delayed possession of a property.

The apex court emphasized the unjust nature of charging interest from appellants (homebuyers) in the context of delayed possession of their property. The judgement underscores the rights of consumers in real estate transactions, particularly in cases where the possession of the property is not handed over by the scheduled date.

The appellants, Sanjay Chaudhary and another, filed a consumer case against Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. And another, after facing a delay in the possession of their flat. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had partly allowed their claim but permitted the developer to charge interest on the balance amount from November 14, 2017. The Supreme Court found this to be unjustified.

Non-Delivery of Possession: The Court noted that the developer failed to hand over possession by the scheduled date of March 16, 2014, despite the homebuyers having paid 90% of the total sale consideration.

Unjustified Interest Imposition: Justice Mehta remarked that allowing the developer to charge interest on the remaining amount from the homebuyers was erroneous and unjustified.

Protection of Consumer Rights: The judgement focused on the importance of safeguarding consumer rights in real estate transactions, stressing the need for equitable treatment and justice.

Directive for Conveyance and Possession: The Supreme Court directed the respondent-developer to convey the outstanding amount within two months and to hand over possession within 30 days of the final payment.

The apex court quashed the part of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order that permitted the developer to charge 9% interest. The developer was ordered to settle the account and hand over possession without delay, thereby providing relief to the appellants.

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024

Sanjay Chaudhary & Anr vs. Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr

 

Latest Legal News