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 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 Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

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