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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2265

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Padma Pandey, Presiding Member, Rajesh K. Arya, Member
Jagtej Kaur Grewal – Appellant
Versus
Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd – Respondent
Complaint case No. 80 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate (on V.C)
For the Respondents:Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

Non-delivery of plot possession despite 75% payment, no agreement, and unilateral size reduction after 13 years constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; entitles refund with 9% interest from deposit dates.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 47(4) - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint filed where complainant resides is maintainable even if project situated outside jurisdiction. (Para 13)

(B) Limitation Act - Continuing cause of action - Non-delivery of possession and fresh demand letter after 13 years give recurring cause of action; complaint not barred by limitation. (Para 14-15)

(C) Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act - Section 6 - Mandatory to execute registered agreement before receiving more than 25% sale consideration; failure constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. (Para 24-25)

(D) Consumer protection - Real estate - Receipt of 75% payment for 400 sq. yd. plot without allotment, agreement, or possession for 13 years; unilateral reduction of plot size after delay amounts to deficiency and unfair practice; entitled to refund with 9% interest from deposit dates. (Paras 16-28) (E) Directors' liability - Director during relevant period when cause of action arose cannot be deleted as unnecessary party despite later resignation; role in management requires adjudication. (Paras 10-12) (F) Refund cases - Interest @9% p.a. from respective deposit dates compensatory for loss due to escalation and non-delivery; penal interest @12% on default; compensation for agony and costs. (Paras 30-34)

Facts of the case:
Complainant booked 400 sq. yd. residential plot in 2012 by paying ₹37 lakhs initially and ₹18.50 lakhs in 2013 (total ₹55.50 lakhs, ~75% of price). No agreement executed, no plot allotted, no possession despite promises and follow-ups. After 13 years, developer demanded further payment for reduced 302.83 sq. yd. plot. Project approvals delayed, development incomplete. Complaint sought refund alleging deficiency and unfair practice.

Findings of Court:
Territorial jurisdiction upheld; limitation rejected due to continuing wrong; developer deficient for non-execution of agreement post-25% payment, no possession, unilateral plot size change; adverse inference from no completion certificate; refund ordered with interest.

Issues: Territorial jurisdiction; limitation; necessity of director as party; deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to delay, non-allotment, non-agreement; quantum of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Receiving substantial payment without agreement/possession violates statutory duty; prolonged delay without development entitles refund with compensatory interest from deposit dates; continuing cause of action from non-performance; directors liable if involved during cause of action period.

Result: Complaint partly allowed. Directed refund of ₹55,50,000/- with 9% interest from deposit dates; ₹75,000/- compensation and costs; penal interest on default. (Para 34)

ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate (on V.C) for the complainant Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3 & 5 PER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER The complainant has filed this complaint seeking refund of the amount paid by her to the tune of55,50,000/- to the opposite parties towards purchase of a plot in the project launched by them under the name and style ‘The Palm”, New Chandigarh, Mohali, Punjab, on the ground that they failed to offer possession thereof, for dearth of construction and development activities and also necessary approvals/sanctions. It is the case of the complainant that she booked a plot in the said project on 29.05.2012 by paying an amount of37 Lacs on 29.05.2012 itself and was accordingly, allotted a plot measuring 400 square yards. Thereafter, she paid another amount of18.50 lacs on 09.07.2013. However, no agreement was executed and no specific date of handing over of possession of the said plot has been given by the opposite parties till date. It has further been averred that possession has not been delivered even after 13 years from the date of booking/allotment, till date. It has further been averred that the opposite parties raised a further demand of18.50 Lacs vide letter dated 06.06.2014 whereas even after receiving more than 75% of the total sale consideration, as stated above, plot buyers agreement has not been executed by the opposite parties. It has further been averred that as per Section 6 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, it is mandatory for the developer/promoter to execute a registered agreement with the allottee before receiving more than 25% of the total sale consideration. It has further been stated that the complainant wrote letters dated 11.09.2023, 30.12.2023 and 16.09.2024 to the opposite parties highlighting that they had been running from pillar to post to get possession of the allotted plot complete in all respects, however, to her utter dismay, there is no response or action from the side of the opposite parties. It has further been averred that the opposite parties finally reverted on 17.06.2025, Exhibit C-6, stating that the letter of allotment dated 29.05.2012 was merely an expression of interest for purchase of one 302.83 sq. yard residential plot. It has further been averred that now the opposite parties after lapse of 13 years took a summersault and issued letter qua allotment of 302.83 sq. yards, which itself shows the ill intention of the opposite parties. It has further been averred that the opposite parties do not have the completion certificate for the project in question and the development is still going on and is nowhere near completion as the plot in question has not been earmarked till date.

2] By stating that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties in not offering/delivering possession of the plot in question, despite the fact that the complainant started pouring money from 2012 itself, amount to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of amount paid alongwith interest, compensation etc.

3] The claim of the complainant has been contested by opposite parties No.1, 2, 3 & 5 by filing joint reply, wherein, they took a preliminary objection that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction as the unit allotted to the complainant is situated at New Chandigarh, District Mohali, Punjab. However, on merits, the allegations of the complainant have been vehemently denied being wholly incorrect and baseless. It has been pleaded that the complainant had merely submitted an Expression of Interest for a future upcoming project and had applied for a 400 sq. yard plot, however, she was provisionally allotted a plot measuring 302.83 sq. yards, which she never accepted nor did she come forward to execute the Buyer Agreement or make the requisite payments as per the payment plan. The contesting opposite parties further submit that t

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 Back to top