MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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