CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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