State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

Supreme Court Rules Developer Not Liable to Pay Interest on Deposited Amount in Consumer Complaint Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a developer cannot be held liable to pay interest on a deposited amount in a consumer complaint case. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, emphasized that the complainant failed to take necessary steps to protect her interests and that the developer had debited the amount from its account. The court dismissed the complainant's appeal and highlighted the need for guidelines to be framed for the proper depositing of amounts with court registries to prevent future losses.

The Supreme Court observed, "The complainant cannot claim interest from the developer, who had returned the Pay Order. The complainant did not take steps to protect her interests... no equities can be extended to her aid."

The case revolved around a consumer complaint filed against a developer for not paying interest on a deposited amount. The complainant had filed the original Pay Order along with the complaint but failed to seek appropriate orders to ensure the amount was deposited in an interest-bearing account. The developer returned the Pay Order, and the complainant subsequently claimed interest on the amount.

The court clarified that the developer cannot be held liable for interest since the amount had been debited from its account. Furthermore, the complainant's failure to take necessary steps to protect her interests weighed in favor of the developer. The court cited precedents and held that the rule embodied in Order XXI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the payment of deposited amounts, applied in this case.

The bench also stressed the importance of framing guidelines to govern the depositing of amounts with court registries. The guidelines should ensure that amounts are properly deposited in banks or financial institutions to avoid any future losses. The court emphasized the need for clarity and instructed each court, tribunal, commission, authority, and agency exercising adjudicatory power to establish rules or regulations to this effect.

Date of Decision: January 31, 2023

SUNEJA & ANR.   vs (MRS.) MANJEET KAUR MONGA

Latest Legal News