Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: 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