Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Supreme Court Mandates 12% Interest on Delayed Real Estate Refunds, Rejects Developer’s Force Majeure Claim

31 August 2024 10:12 AM

By: sayum


In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court of India has modified the interest rate awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on refunds due to homebuyers in a delayed real estate project. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, ruled that the interest rate should be increased from 9% to 12% per annum. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring fair compensation for consumers affected by prolonged project delays.

M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., a prominent real estate developer, launched a group housing project named 'Parsvnath Paramount' in Subhash Nagar, New Delhi, in 2008. The complainants, Vidya and others, booked a 3BHK flat in this project and entered into a Flat Buyer Agreement with the developer on October 10, 2008. Despite timely payments amounting to approximately 95% of the total sale price by the complainants, the project faced significant delays, and possession was not handed over within the stipulated time frame.

The developer cited delays in plan sanctions by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and recession in the real estate sector as reasons for the project's delay, invoking the force majeure clause. However, the Supreme Court, referencing a prior judgment in the DLF Home Developers case, rejected this contention, emphasizing that the force majeure clause did not cover the delays in this scenario.

The complainants argued that the interest rate awarded by the NCDRC (9% per annum) was unjustifiably low, especially since the agreement stipulated a 24% per annum interest rate on delays attributable to the flat purchaser but only 12% per annum for delays by the developer. The court acknowledged this disparity and highlighted that the NCDRC should have awarded at least 12% interest per annum as per the agreement's terms.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the terms of the agreement and the factual matrix, concluding that the NCDRC's decision to award 9% interest was not justified. The bench noted, "Undisputedly, the facts of the case show that the project was delayed inordinately. The complainants-appellants were made to suffer for long, for no fault of them. In spite of making the entire payment, they were deprived of the possession within the stipulated time."

Justice B.R. Gavai remarked, "The learned Commission, at least, ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum in view of clause 7(b) of the Agreement."

The Supreme Court's decision to increase the interest rate on refunds from 9% to 12% per annum sends a strong message about the importance of equitable treatment for consumers in real estate transactions. By upholding the refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainants and modifying the interest rate, the judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance on fair compensation for aggrieved homebuyers. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving delayed real estate projects, promoting greater accountability among developers.

Date of Decision: July 29, 2024

Vidya and Others vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Latest Legal News