TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the 42-month period for handing over possession under the apartment buyer's agreement was to be computed from the date of sanction of the building plans or from the date of fire NOC; (ii) whether the agreement contained one-sided and unfair clauses binding on the apartment buyers; (iii) whether the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were ousted or subordinated by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; and (iv) whether the apartment buyers were entitled to terminate the agreement and seek refund with interest on account of inordinate delay.
Issue (i): whether the 42-month period for handing over possession under the apartment buyer's agreement was to be computed from the date of sanction of the building plans or from the date of fire NOC.
Analysis: The agreement linked the commitment period to approval of the building plans and fulfilment of pre-conditions imposed thereunder. The sanctioned plans and environmental clearance required fire safety approval before commencement of construction, and Section 15 of the Haryana Fire Service Act, 2009 required a no objection certificate before construction of the relevant high-rise project could proceed. On that basis, the period for possession had to be reckoned from the date on which fire approval was granted.
Conclusion: The 42-month period was to be calculated from 27.11.2014, the date of fire approval, and not from 23.07.2013, the date of sanction of the building plans.
Issue (ii): whether the agreement contained one-sided and unfair clauses binding on the apartment buyers.
Analysis: The clauses imposed heavy interest and forfeiture consequences on the allottee for delay, while the developer's liability for delayed possession was limited to modest delay compensation and postponed refund rights. The terms also curtailed the buyer's remedies while preserving expansive termination and forfeiture rights for the developer. Such clauses were held to be oppressive and inequitable, and the consumer fora's powers under the 1986 Act were sufficient to grant relief against such unfair trade practice.
Conclusion: The developer could not compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms.
Issue (iii): whether the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were ousted or subordinated by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Analysis: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy and is not in derogation of other laws. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 similarly preserves other remedies, and its jurisdictional bar is confined to civil courts. The buyer was therefore entitled to invoke consumer jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of remedies under RERA.
Conclusion: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 continued to operate as an additional and concurrent remedy, and RERA did not exclude consumer jurisdiction.
Issue (iv): whether the apartment buyers were entitled to terminate the agreement and seek refund with interest on account of inordinate delay.
Analysis: There was undisputed delay in completion and offering possession. Buyers in completed phases were required to accept possession with delay compensation, but buyers in towers where occupation certificate had not been obtained were not bound to wait indefinitely or accept alternate allotments. Refund was warranted for the delayed and uncompleted units, with interest fixed at a fair rate balancing the parties' competing interests.
Conclusion: The buyers in the uncompleted phase were entitled to refund of the amounts deposited with interest, while buyers in the completed phase were entitled to possession with delay compensation.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by affirming the consumer reliefs substantially in favour of the apartment buyers, including refund with interest for the uncompleted units and possession-related relief for the completed units.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the project documents and statutory clearances make fire approval a pre-condition to construction, the possession timeline in a flat buyer's agreement may run from the date of such approval; one-sided builder-buyer terms may be treated as unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and the consumer remedy remains available notwithstanding parallel remedies under RERA.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
