TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High 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