Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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