Delve into the detailed legal analysis provided by the court in a complex real estate dispute centered around the non-disbursal of a bank loan. The court’s judgement reflects a nuanced understanding of the responsibilities of all parties involved, shedding light on important considerations for similar cases in the future.
Facts
- The appellant entered into an agreement with the complainant for the sale of a Twin Bungalow in Nagpur.
- Total sale consideration was Rs. 9,74,000/-, with partial payment made by the complainant.
- Disputes arose when the loan sanctioned by the bank was not disbursed to the complainant.
- District Forum directed Non-applicant No. 1 to complete construction of the house and compensate the complainant for physical and mental harassment.
- National Consumer Commission disposed of the Revision Petition by upholding certain directions and dismissing others.
- Non-applicant No. 2 was not held liable in the complaint.
- Appellant challenged the District Forum’s order before the National Consumer Commission, which then made its own judgement.
- Bank sanctioned a loan, but it was not disbursed to the complainant and his wife.
- Original complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum, with specific directions given to Non-applicant No. 1.
Also Read: Non-compliance with requirements of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Arguments
- Force in the contention of the Learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner
- Developer cannot be required to obtain the loan amount from the Bank
- Bank practice of gathering all relevant documents before disbursing the loan
- Complainant/Respondent is willing to take possession of the apartment before registering the Sale Deed
- Occupation Certificate is required for registering the Sale Deed
- Developer to provide peaceful possession of the house to the Complainant within a month
- Sale Deed to be executed after obtaining the Occupation Certificate
- Complainant to pay the balance sale consideration directly to the Developer
Also Read: Setting Minimum Qualifying Marks for Viva Voce: A Question of Legality
Analysis
- The National Consumer Commission directed the appellant to hand over possession of the house to the complainant within one month of the order.
- The Sale Deed was to be executed after obtaining the Occupation Certificate.
- The complainant failed to adhere to the payment schedule as per the Agreement to Sell.
- The Complainant did not pay the entire amount of Rs. 9,74,000.
- The operation of the impugned order was stayed upon the Developer depositing a sum of Rs. 3,24,780 with interest at 12% per annum.
- The Court did not adjudicate on the legality or validity of the impugned order considering the specific facts of the case.
- The Agreement for Sale was entered into on 08.06.2006.
- The appellant has appealed against the order passed by the National Consumer Commission.
- The National Consumer Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum.
- Complainant did not go to the bank to get the loan amount disbursed.
- National Consumer Commission stayed the order pending deposit of the amount by the appellant.
- Appellant deposited the amount of Rs. 3,24,780/- with interest as directed.
- The court directed the appellant to refund the amount to the original complainant with interest.
- Consideration of almost 16 years since the original agreement between the parties.
- Complainant failed to make full payment for the bungalow purchase according to the agreement.
- No steps were taken by the complainant to ensure sanctioned bank loan amount was paid to the appellant.
- Court viewed it unreasonable to ask the appellant to execute sale deed after such a long time.
- Complainant showed no interest in abiding by the National Consumer Commission’s directions.
- Complainant did not oppose the appeal before the court.
- Impugned order modified to direct appellant to pay Rs. 3,24,780/- with interest to complainant from the date of agreement.
- No further liability for the appellant once the payment is made.
- Appellant to pay the amount to the complainant within four weeks.
- Appellant can seek refund of the deposited amount from the National Consumer Commission to pay the complainant.
Also Read: Willful Disobedience and Rectification of Court Orders
Decision
- Pending applications disposed of
- Stamp duty and taxes to be borne by Complainant
- Directions given by District Forum and State Commission modified
- Deposit made by Developer to be refunded along with interest
- No costs ordered
Case Title: M/S SIDDHYVINAYAK INFRASTRUCTURE Vs. KAMALAKAR JAYANT SRIVASTAVA (2022 INSC 828)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005208-005208 / 2022
