<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (6) TMI 836 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456597</link>
    <description>The NCDRC directed the developer to refund Rs 2,96,89,370 with interest to flat buyers due to delayed possession. The SC affirmed this, requiring the entire consideration be refunded, including subvention scheme payments. The interest rate was reduced to nine percent. The developer&#039;s compliance led to lifting attachments on bank accounts, and the appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2024 20:16:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 836 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456597</link>
      <description>The NCDRC directed the developer to refund Rs 2,96,89,370 with interest to flat buyers due to delayed possession. The SC affirmed this, requiring the entire consideration be refunded, including subvention scheme payments. The interest rate was reduced to nine percent. The developer&#039;s compliance led to lifting attachments on bank accounts, and the appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>