MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator 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

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