Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Orders Refund of Advance in Property Deal: Equitable and in the Interest of Justice

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a property dispute, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, granted a significant relief to the appellant in a prolonged property dispute. The apex court ordered the respondents to refund an advance payment of Rs. 40,00,000 to Devika Real Estate, the appellant in the case.

The dispute centered around an agreement to sell a property made in 2006, where Devika Real Estate alleged having paid Rs. 40,14,500 as an advance. However, the respondents, including M/s Moksha Buildtech Pvt Ltd, contested this amount, admitting to receiving only Rs. 23 lakhs.

The original suit filed by Devika Real Estate was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), on grounds of lack of accrued cause of action. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, issued notice limited to the aspect of the refund of the claimed amount.

In a critical observation, the Supreme Court noted, "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that whatever be the terms and conditions, it would be equitable and in the interest of justice that the appellant would be entitled to receive the advance amount paid by him along with some interest as the said amount had remained with respondent nos. 2 to 6 for a substantial time of about 18 years."

The Court's decision takes into account the long duration for which the respondents held the advance amount. This ruling emphasizes the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fairness and justice in commercial transactions.

The Court's directive for the respondents to refund Rs. 40,00,000 within eight weeks marks a significant conclusion to this legal battle, highlighting the importance of honoring financial commitments in property dealings.

Date of Decision: 18th January 2024

DEVIKA REAL ESTATE VS M/S MOKSHA BUILDTECH PVT LTD AND ORS.

 

Latest Legal News