https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458453 The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order dated 11.05.2015. The Court held that appellants qualified as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as their dominant purpose for purchasing office space was not purely commercial profit-making. The developer failed to deliver possession within the agreed 24-month period despite only offering "permissive possession" without the premises being ready for occupation. The Court directed the respondent developer to refund the amount received from appellants with 12% per annum interest, balancing equities while considering delayed installment payments and asset appreciation. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Oct 2024 21:59:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458453 The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order dated 11.05.2015. The Court held that appellants qualified as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as their dominant purpose for purchasing office space was not purely commercial profit-making. The developer failed to deliver possession within the agreed 24-month period despite only offering "permissive possession" without the premises being ready for occupation. The Court directed the respondent developer to refund the amount received from appellants with 12% per annum interest, balancing equities while considering delayed installment payments and asset appreciation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458453