(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 67—Housing—Group Housing Project—Allotment of flat—Deficiency in service—Delay in possession—In a case concerning delay in the delivery of possession of a flat, the complainant was deemed entitled to a refund of the amount paid, along with interest—The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) reduced the interest rate from 15% per annum to 9%, which was found reasonable—The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's decision, stating that the initial interest rate of 15% per annum was excessive—This ruling reinforces the principle that interest should be fair and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. (Paras 4, 14) (B) Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 67—Housing Authority—Delays in the cons...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 21—Allotment of flat—Cancelled by developer—With cancellation letter, developer enclosed a pay order—Complainant issued notice—Demanded possession of flat beside claiming Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation—COMPAT directed the developer to pay compound interest @ 15% p.a. to legal representative of complainant—COMPAT's order was challenged by both complainant and developers—Determination of—As regards complainant's appeal, contention is that impugned order is in error because Tribunal ought to have directed that developer ought to have been directed to pay interest on sum of Rs. 4,53,750/-—That plea is plainly untenable—Complainant did not point to any rule or binding legal principle—Which obliged developer to pay inter...

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)—Allotment of Flat—Appellant is aggrieved by an order of NCDRC—Respondent sought, through his complaint a direction against builder, for refund of consideration amount of Rs. 1,93,70,883/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from date of different instalments were paid, as well as compensation and costs—Determination of—There was slowdown construction—On account of orders made by NGT—Builder alleged that slowdown in construction was due to NGT's interim orders—Principal argument of builder is right of a purchaser are not same as an original allottee—In opinion of this Court, can properly be moulded by directing refund of principal amounts, with interest @ 9% p.a. from date the builder acquired knowledge of transfer, or acknowledged it—Im...

Appeals relate to land allotment in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ)—A Government Order dated 30.07.2018 was presented, indicating the government's decision to take back the SEZ lands and refund the amounts paid by the parties along with interest—The appellants accepted this resolution—The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) instructed to expedite the refunds, to be completed within three months. ...

Auction of personal properties of partners/ex-partners of a developer firm and instructed individual consumers/buyers/allottees to file complaints against the proprietors of the developer firm—Developer firm failed to provide basic amenities to the colony's residents—Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration, allowing both parties an opportunity to resolve the dispute and complete the project, without expressing an opinion on the merits. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article—226—Allotment of Flat—Legal Deposit Requirement—The respondent sought flat allotment in the Fifth Self-Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982, by the appellant—However, the respondent deposited two instalments after the due date, but not directly with the appellant, rendering the deposits as not legally valid—The court rejected the presumption that there was no extension request made by the respondent before the payment due date—To remedy the situation, the court ordered that if the respondent pays the entire outstanding amount, including interest calculated from the due date until deposit, the appellant must allot and deliver possession of the flat in the next draw of lots—Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the requirement for ...