In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgement in the case related to a Hyderabad apartment sale. The ruling on compensation has far-reaching implications for both parties involved. Stay tuned as we delve into the details of this crucial decision that will impact future property transactions in the region.
Facts
- An agreement to sell was executed on 21 March 2011 between the appellant and the respondents for an apartment in Hyderabad.
- Possession was to be handed over to the respondents by 28 March 2011 as per clause 5.1(iii) of the agreement, with a grace period of three months.
- Due to a restraining order by the State Waqf Tribunal on 28 March 2011, possession could not be handed over as planned.
- Eventually, possession was handed over on 28 August 2014 as evidenced by a document between the parties.
- A sale deed was executed on 11 February 2013, completing the sale transaction for a total consideration of Rs 1,55,50,826.
- The NCDRC disposed of the consumer complaint on 8 October 2014, directing the appellant to pay compensation for the delay in possession.
- At the end of the six-month delay period specified in the agreement, compensation at Rs 5 per sq ft became applicable to the appellant.
- The appellant had a grace period of three months after the injunction was lifted by the Court on 8 May 2012, giving them time until 8 August 2012.
- The period of six months ended on 8 February 2013 as stipulated in the agreement.
- The maximum delay allowed was up to six months according to the terms of the agreement.
Analysis
- The agreement did not include provisions for the period thereafter.
- Clause 8 of the agreement listed force majeure events, with a stipulation in Clause 5.1(iii) extending the possession handover period during such events.
- The grace period set in the agreement ended on 28 June 2011.
- The agreement stipulated that 5 11.
- The stipulation was a key provision of the judgement.
- It outlined a specific condition that needed to be followed.
- The stipulation was an important aspect of the agreement.
- The direction to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum is considered excessive.
- The interest rate has to be scaled down.
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Decision
- Appellant to pay compensation in terms of Clause 5.1(iii) at rate of Rs 5 per sq ft for period between 8 Feb 2012 and 8 Feb 2013.
- For the period between 9 Feb 2013 and 28 Aug 2014, lump sum compensation of Rs 10 lakhs to be paid by the appellant to the respondents.
- Appellant liable to pay reasonable compensation for the period between 9 Feb 2013 and 28 Aug 2014, in addition to contractual payment for the period between 8 Aug 2012 and 8 Feb 2013.
- Amount to be paid within one month from receipt of certified copy of this order.
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Case Title: M/S LANCO HILLS TECHNOLOGY PARK PVT LTD. Vs. MANISHA BALKRISHNA KULKARNI
Case Number: C.A. No.-000155-000155 / 2015
