Judgment in Complaint Case No. 2010 of 2016 – Villa Possession Delay Case

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment in Complaint Case No. 2010 of 2016 concerning the delay in possession of a residential villa. This case involves the dispute between the buyers and the builders of the villa named Emerald-07. The Court’s ruling includes a decision to refund the principal amount to the complainants with interest, highlighting a crucial win for consumer rights and property rights.


  • The Appellants agreed to deliver possession of a residential villa named Emerald-07 by 31.12.2014, but failed to do so.
  • The villa was still incomplete even after five years from the promised delivery date.
  • The total consideration for the villa with parking spaces and terrace was Rs.8,31,04,425, out of which Rs.8.14 crores had been deposited by the Appellants from July 2012 to November 2013.
  • The Respondents filed a Complaint Case seeking a refund of Rs.13,24,07,052 along with interest and cost of litigation.
  • The Appellants claimed that additional work requested by the Respondents and Stop Work Notices from the Pune Municipal Corporation caused delays.
  • An agreement between the parties specified that the unit would be constructed according to approved plans and specifications.
  • The Commission rejected the Appellants’ application for extension of time to comply with the judgment.
  • The possession of the villa was never offered to the Respondents, and the delay was not their responsibility.

Also Read: Legal Analysis: Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh – Permissibility of Subsequent Pleading in Election Petition Proceedings


  • The key issues in this case are whether the Commission’s view was correct and if any interference by the Court is necessary.
  • The Respondents paid Rs. 8.14 crores out of the total consideration of Rs. 8.31 crores by November 2013.
  • The Appellants failed to complete the villa by the agreed deadline of 31.12.2014.
  • The Appellants’ failure to fulfill their obligation was evident as of 28.05.2014.

Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF


  • The Appellants were found to be deficient in rendering the services they had undertaken.
  • Even if the villa is now ready for occupation, the significant delay of almost five years cannot be overlooked.
  • The Revised Construction Schedule indicated a delivery date of October 2014, showing a clear breach of contract by the Appellants.
  • The findings by the Commission were not incorrect or unreasonable
  • The Respondents were justified in seeking a refund of the deposited amounts with reasonable interest

Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration


  • The opposite party is directed to refund the entire principal amount of Rs.8.14 crores to the complainants with 10% per annum interest from the date of each payment
  • The residential villa in question cannot be sold or have any third-party rights created on it until the decree in favor of the complainants is fully satisfied
  • The villa will be under attachment and subject to necessary orders for execution of the Consumer Case No. 2010 of 2016
  • The appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs


Case Number: C.A. No.-003207-003208 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *