{"id":315961,"date":"2024-03-02T18:30:52","date_gmt":"2024-03-02T13:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=315961"},"modified":"2024-03-02T20:25:57","modified_gmt":"2024-03-02T14:55:57","slug":"ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/","title":{"rendered":"NCDRC cannot rewrite terms & conditions of contract and apply its own subjective criteria: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer for delayed possession"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), filed for appellants right to terminate the sale agreement and claim unconditional refund of the total amount paid by him with interest for the property, the division bench of Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar*<\/span>, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, held that the NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring the binding covenants in the agreement and in introducing its own logic and rationale to decide as to what the future course of action of the parties should be.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

The appellants intended to purchase an apartment in a building to be constructed by the Lodha Crown Buildmart (‘company’) at New Cuffe Parade. The parties executed an agreement to sell. As per the agreement, possession of the apartment was to be delivered to the appellants for fit outs by 30-06-2016 or, with a grace period of one year, by 30-06-2017. Alleging that the company had not delivered possession of the apartment for fit outs by the said date and that they had terminated the agreement, the appellants approached the NCDRC. Their prayer was for refund of the amount paid by them with compound interest thereon at 18% p.a. along with compensation for the harassment, mental agony and torture suffered by them, apart from litigation cost.<\/p>\n

NCDRC order<\/p>\n

NCDRC noted that there was ‘some delay’ in handing over of possession of the apartment by the company, but opined that it was not ‘unreasonable’, whereby the appellants could cancel the Agreement and seek a refund. The NCDRC further opined that if they wish to seek a refund, the company was entitled to deduction\/forfeiture of the earnest money as per the agreement’s provisions. It also observed that the company was still bound to provide actual physical possession of the apartment, complete in all respects.<\/p>\n

Analysis:<\/p>\n

The Court took note of the terms and conditions which were arrived at by and between the parties. It took Clause 11 and 21 of the agreement and said that that the company was to deliver possession of the apartment to the appellants for fit outs by 30-06-2016 but grace period of one year was provided under Clause 11.2, whereby the date for delivery of such possession stood extended till 30-06-2017.<\/p>\n

Further, it noted that Clause 21.u indicates that the works in the apartment, so far as the company is concerned, were to be completed by that date and the apartment was to have regular water and electricity supply, apart from lift access, and the appellants could carry on interior and other related works therein. Further, as per Clause 11.1, the company was required to obtain the Occupation Certificate in respect of the apartment and make available the key common areas and amenities in the building within one year from the date of offer of possession for fit outs. That was deemed the final possession of the apartment in terms of Clause 11.2. This date for delivery of final possession was also extendable by one year, i.e., up to 30-06-2018.<\/p>\n

It also noted that, by letter dated 29-11-2017, the company informed the appellants that their apartment was ready for possession and called upon them to make the payment due at the earliest to enable the process to hand over possession being initiated.<\/p>\n

The Court said that once the parties committed themselves to a written contract, whereby they reduced the terms and conditions agreed upon by them to writing, the same would be binding upon them. In the event such a written contract provided for the consequences that are to follow in the event of breach of the conditions by one or the other of the parties, such consequences must necessarily follow and if resisted, they would be legally enforceable.<\/p>\n

The Bench further said that the agreement stipulated the date of delivery of possession of the apartment for fit outs with a grace period of one year. Thus, the date for delivery of possession of the apartment for fit outs, with the grace period, was 30-06-2017. As the company did not offer delivery of possession of the apartment for fit outs by that date. The ‘date of offer of possession’, under Clause 1.14, linked with issuance of the ‘Occupation Certificate’ was distinct and separate from the ‘date of delivery of possession for fit outs’.<\/p>\n

Further, it said that Clause 11.3 unequivocally provided the consequences in the event of delay in that regard. The right of election given thereunder to the appellants to either continue or to terminate the agreement within ninety days from the expiry of the grace period was absolute and it was not open to the NCDRC to apply its own standards and conclude that, though there was delay in handing over possession of the apartment, such delay was not unreasonable enough to warrant cancellation of the agreement. It was not for the NCDRC to rewrite the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and apply its own subjective criteria to determine the course of action to be adopted by either of them.<\/p>\n

The Court held that the NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring the binding covenants in the agreement and in introducing its own logic and rationale to decide as to what the future course of action of the parties should be.<\/p>\n

The Court set aside the impugned order, as the appellants did not choose to act upon the belated offer of the company, in its letter dated 29-11-2017, and are still intent on terminating the agreement as per Clause 11.3 of the Agreement. Further, it directed the company to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 2,25,31,148 in twelve equal monthly installments, through post-dated cheques, with simple interest thereon at 12% p.a., from the date of receipt of the said amount or parts thereof till actual repayment.<\/p>\n

[Venkataraman Krishnamurthy v. Lodha Crown Buildmart (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 182<\/a>, decided on 22-02-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sanjay Kumar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court said that once the parties committed themselves to a written contract, whereby they reduced the terms and conditions agreed upon by them to writing, the same would be binding upon them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":315968,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[2998,65992,65991,8671,46293,3175,3686,65993,17271,3095,2532,5363],"class_list":["post-315961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-Agreement","tag-apartment-buyer","tag-binding-covenants","tag-builder","tag-delayed-possession","tag-earnest_money","tag-Jurisdiction","tag-lodha-crown-buildmart","tag-national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission","tag-NCDRC","tag-Refund","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\n\u2018NCDRC overstepped power and jurisdiction ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its logic\u2019: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer and held that NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its own logic\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NCDRC cannot rewrite terms & conditions of contract and apply its own subjective criteria: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer for delayed possession\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer and held that NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its own logic\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-03-02T13:00:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-03-02T14:55:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/ncdrc-5.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"NCDRC cannot rewrite terms & conditions of contract and apply its own subjective criteria: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer for delayed possession\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/\",\"name\":\"\u2018NCDRC overstepped power and jurisdiction ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its logic\u2019: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/ncdrc.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-03-02T13:00:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-03-02T14:55:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer and held that NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its own logic\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/ncdrc.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/ncdrc.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"jurisdiction\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NCDRC cannot rewrite terms & conditions of contract and apply its own subjective criteria: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer for delayed possession\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u2018NCDRC overstepped power and jurisdiction ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its logic\u2019: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer | SCC Times","description":"SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer and held that NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its own logic","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NCDRC cannot rewrite terms & conditions of contract and apply its own subjective criteria: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer for delayed possession","og_description":"SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer and held that NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its own logic","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-03-02T13:00:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-03-02T14:55:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/ncdrc-5.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"NCDRC cannot rewrite terms & conditions of contract and apply its own subjective criteria: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer for delayed possession","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/","name":"\u2018NCDRC overstepped power and jurisdiction ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its logic\u2019: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/ncdrc.webp","datePublished":"2024-03-02T13:00:52+00:00","dateModified":"2024-03-02T14:55:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer and held that NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring binding covenants in agreement and introducing its own logic","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/ncdrc.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/ncdrc.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"jurisdiction"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/02\/ncdrc-overstepped-power-jurisdiction-ignoring-binding-covenants-agreement-introducing-logic-sc-directs-builder-refund-deposited-amount-buyer\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NCDRC cannot rewrite terms & conditions of contract and apply its own subjective criteria: SC directs builder to refund deposited amount to buyer for delayed possession"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/ncdrc.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":196426,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/25\/ncdrcs-pecuniary-jurisdiction-involves-consideration-plus-compensation-no-presumption-that-nris-purchase-property-to-sell-for-profit\/","url_meta":{"origin":315961,"position":0},"title":"NCDRC\u2019s pecuniary jurisdiction involves consideration plus compensation; no presumption that NRIs purchase property to sell for profit","author":"Saba","date":"May 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The complainant is a Non-Resident Indian (\u201cNRI\u201d) residing in the USA. He booked a flat with the respondent which was duly allotted to him in August 2007. The agreement between the parties stated that the flat shall be delivered within three years of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237728,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/20\/ncdrc-builder-has-to-mention-the-date-of-delivery-of-possession-in-agreement-homebuyer-cannot-be-made-to-wait-for-possession-indefinietly\/","url_meta":{"origin":315961,"position":1},"title":"NCDRC | Builder has to mention the date of delivery of possession in agreement & failure to do so will be read against builder; Homebuyer cannot be made to wait for possession indefinitely","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):\u00a0\u00a0A Division Bench of Dr S.M. Kantikar (Presiding Member) and Dinesh Singh (Member) held that, a homebuyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. The instant appeal was preferred by the appellant under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301409,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/14\/ncdrc-directs-developers-hand-over-possession-or-refund-sum-of-1-crore-home-buyer\/","url_meta":{"origin":315961,"position":2},"title":"NCDRC directs developers to hand over possession of flat or refund sum of 1 crore to a buyer","author":"Ridhi","date":"September 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"NCDRC remarked that the argument of dissolution of joint venture agreement relieving obligations of one of the opposite parties was misconceived and could not be accepted.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"national consumer disputes redressal commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286981,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/15\/ncdrc-slams-compensation-on-builder-not-giving-possession-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":315961,"position":3},"title":"Builder not giving possession on time; NCDRC slams with compensation for delay in delivery of possession","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In another case of delayed possession of flats by builder in Gurugram, NCDRC directed the builder to compensate the homebuyers for delay and differences of brochure and builder homebuyer agreement.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-744.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-744.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-744.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-744.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222197,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/16\/ncdrc-in-case-of-unreasonable-delay-in-offering-possession-of-allotted-flat-consumer-entitled-to-seek-refund-of-amount-paid-with-compensation\/","url_meta":{"origin":315961,"position":4},"title":"NCDRC | In case of unreasonable delay in offering possession of allotted flat, consumer entitled to seek refund of amount paid with compensation","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Justice V.K. Jain (Presiding Member), while disposing of a complaint, directed the builder to refund the amount paid by consumer along with compensation due to failure in offering the possession of the residential apartment with respect to the agreed agreement between the parties. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":232897,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/27\/ncdrc-possession-of-apartments-due-in-2016-not-handed-over-till-date-developers-directed-to-refund-amount-at-an-interest-of-9-per-annum\/","url_meta":{"origin":315961,"position":5},"title":"NCDRC | Possession of apartments due in 2016, not handed over till date: Developers directed to refund amount at an interest of 9% per annum","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 27, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):\u00a0Prem Narain, Presiding Member, has directed the developers of \"Greenopolis\" to refund homebuyers their amount deposited at the interest rate of 9% p.a. and in a few complaints the bench has asked for the possession to be handed over by 30-09-2020 with the occupancy certificate\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/315961","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=315961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/315961\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/315968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=315961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=315961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=315961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}