Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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