GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs DAVENDRA SHARMA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(SC) 682

Supreme Court Of India
B.N. AGRAWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY- Appellant
Versus
DAVENDRA SHARMA- Respondent
Civil Appeals No. 7396 of 2002 with Nos. 7695 of 2002, 400, 1018, 3955 of 2003, SLPs (C) Nos. 23127 and 14052 of 2003, CAs Nos. 407, 401, 398 of 2003, 8514,7783 of 2002, 408, 1012, 1488, 3910 of 2003, 8529 of 2002, 2768-71 of 2005, 2772 of 2005, 8401, 7287 of 2002,403, 1015, 1965, 3959 of 2003, 7386 of 2002 and 1020 of 2003,
Decided on April 20, 2005

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 14(1)(d), 18, 22 and 23 - Allotment of plot-Direction to deliver possession - Development Authority failed to deliver possession to the allottees.- It has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh reported in 2004(5) SCC 65 that in such cases, the direction for delivery of possession has to be set aside and only direction that could be given was to refund the allottees, the amount deposited by them together with interest @ 18 per cent from the date of deposit till refund- Therefore direction for delivery of possession set aside- The allottees held entitled to refund of amount deposited by them with 18% interest. [Para 5]

ORDER

Civil Appeals Nos. 7396, 7695 of 2002, 400, 1018, 3955 of 2003, SLPs (C) Nos. 23127, 14052 of 2003, Civil Appeals Nos. 407, 401, 398 of 2003, 8514, 7783 of 2002 and 408 of 2003

1. Heard the parties.

2. The point involved in these cases is concluded by judgments of this Court rendered in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh1 and Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh2.

3. Accordingly, these appeals and special leave petitions are disposed of in terms of the said judgments. No costs.

4. It is clarified that no interest shall be payable during the period when stay granted by the High Court was operative.

Civil Appeals Nos. 1012, 1488, 3910 of 2003, 8529 of 2002, 2768, 2769, a 2770,2771,2772 of2005 arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 12583, 12605, 12606, 12607, 13785 of 2003, Civil Appeals Nos. 8401, 7287 of 2002, 403, 1015, 1965, 3959 0f 2003, 7386 of 2002 and 1020 of 2003

5. Heard the parties.

6. Delay condoned.

7. Leave granted in special \eave petitions.

8. In all these cases, it has been stated that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has not been able to deliver possession to the allottees. It has been held by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh1 that in such cases, the direction for delivery of possession has to be set aside and only direction that could be given was to refund the allottees, the amount deposited by them together with interest @ 18 per cent from the date of deposit till refund.

9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part, the direction for delivery of possession in favour of the respondents is set aside. So far as the direction for making payment of interest @ 18 per cent is concerned, it is directed that the allottees shall be entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited by them together with interest @ 18 per cent from the date of deposit till the same is refunded. No costs.

10. Pursuant to orders of this Court if any amount has been deposited before any authority or court and the same has been already withdrawn by the allottees, in that event only, the same shall be adjusted by the Authority.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 682

Cases Referred (2)