SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 1483

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA
Kolkata West International City Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Devasis Rudra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ravinder Narain, Siddharth Banthia, Rajat Gava, Rajan Narain, Advocates, for the Appellants; Supriya Bose, Sr. Adv., Debajyoti Deb, Subhasish Bhowmick, Ms. Goldy Goyel, Advocates, for the Respondents

Judgement Key Points

What is the remedy if there is unreasonable delay in possession in a Buyer''s Agreement? What is the appropriate rate of interest on refunds awarded in a consumer dispute for delayed possession? What are the consequences of a one-sided clause in a Buyer''s Agreement regarding possession and interest?

Key Points: - The court held that unreasonable delay in possession can justify refund of money with interest. (!) (!) - The Court modified the NCDRC order to award interest at 9% per annum, instead of 12%. (!) - The Buyer''s Agreement clause regarding possession and interest was found to be one-sided and indicative of unfairness. (!) (!) - Despite seeking possession as primary relief, refund of money with interest was justified given seven-year delay. (!) - The SCDRC/NCDRC awards for refund and compensation were upheld with modification to interest rate. (!) (!) - The possession completion certificate was received much later (2016), far beyond the extended possession date. (!) (!) - The appeal disposed of with no order as to costs. (!) - The respondent had filed a consumer complaint in 2011 seeking possession or refund with interest and compensation. (!) - The court noted that a reasonable period for awaiting possession cannot be indefinite. (!) - The amount deposit and distribution per court directions were to be adjusted from appellant's deposited funds. (!)

What is the remedy if there is unreasonable delay in possession in a Buyer''s Agreement?

What is the appropriate rate of interest on refunds awarded in a consumer dispute for delayed possession?

What are the consequences of a one-sided clause in a Buyer''s Agreement regarding possession and interest?


JUDGMENT

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 21 November 2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC").

3. A Buyer's Agreement dated 2 July 2007 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent.

4. The respondent paid an amount of Rs. 39,29,280 in 2006 in terms of a letter of allotment dated 20 September 2006. The agreement between the parties envisaged that the appellant would hand over possession of a Row House to the respondent by 31 December 2008 with a grace period of a further six months ending on 30 June 2009.

5. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("SCDRC") in 2011 praying for possession of the Row House and in the alternative for the refund of the amount paid to the developer together with interest at 12% per annum. Compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs was also claimed.

6. The SCDRC allowed the complaint by directing the appellant to refund the moneys paid by the respondent together with interest at 12% per annum and compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. The NCDRC has modified this order by reducing the compensation from Rs. 5 l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top