Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a homebuyer’s refund after delay of nearly seven years beyond the extended possession deadline. Initially seeking possession did not oblige the buyer to wait indefinitely or defeat the alternative refund prayer. The one-sided contractual delay-interest clause did not preclude reasonable interest or compensation. The Court reduced refund interest from 12% to 9% per annum while affirming the National Commission’s remaining directions, including compensation.
Issues
- Whether the buyer could obtain refund despite initially seeking possession.
- Whether the contractual delay clause limited relief and what interest was appropriate.
Held
- A buyer may be expected to wait a reasonable period, but nearly seven years beyond the extended delivery deadline was unreasonable. The primary possession prayer did not defeat the alternative refund remedy. (¶ 10–11)
- The agreement imposed 18% interest on buyer default but only a savings-bank rate for developer delay. This one-sided clause did not foreclose reasonable interest or compensation. (¶ 8–9)
- On the circumstances, interest was reduced to 9% from 12%. All other National Commission directions were affirmed; the sums due were to be released from the deposit and any surplus returned to the developer. (¶ 12–13)
Result
Appeal disposed of with interest reduced to 9% per annum. Refund and the remaining National Commission directions, including Rs 2 lakh compensation, affirmed. Payment from the deposit directed; surplus to developer. No costs.