Delhi District Court
Megha Ohri vs Wtc Noida Development on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:-
CS (COMM) NO. 274/2024
Ms. Megha Ohri
W/o Sh. Sachin Talwar
R/o 45 Sukh Dev Vihar,
New Delhi - 110025.
e-mail : [email protected]
.......Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s WTC Noida Development
Company Private Limited
Registered Office at:
GF-09, Plaza M6, District Centre,
Jasola, New Delhi - 110025.
..... Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 10.04.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 23.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 02.04.2026
Plaintiff is represented by Counsel Ms. Arzoo Raj.
Defendants are ex-parte.
CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 1/ 15
Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd
JUDGMENT
1. Instant suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant company seeking relief of Specific performance of Settlement Deeds dated 22.12.2021 executed between parties with further directions against defendant to pay to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.13,68,357/- as on date on account of arrears of monthly assured returns (MAR) from January 2023 till March 2024 alongwith interest pendente lite and future @12% per annum.
2. It is necessary to take note of the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
Plaintiff states that Defendant is a real estate development company, engaged into the business of developing commercial real estate projects. The defendant was developing one such project called Information Technology Park by the name of "World Trade Centre Noida" situated on a Plot at Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the said project"). Defendant extensively advertised about the said project across media channels and platforms, newspaper advertisements, social media posts. In order to attract the public to invest in the said project, respondent made various promises to the potential investors, promising Monthly Assured Returns (MAR) till the completion of the project, timely completion of construction and high quality of construction.
CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 2/ 15Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd Based upon the representations so made by defendant, plaintiff applied in the said project in the year 2013 and at the time of booking, paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to defendant in respect of one unit. The plaintiffs grandfather Mr. Sat Bir also applied for another unlockable unit in the said project and paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendant. The payments were duly acknowledged by the defendant vide receipts dated 19.08.2013 and 23.08.2013.
Plaintiff was allotted an unlockable unit admeasuring 500 square feet in the said project. A Developer Buyer Agreement (DBA dated 11.12.2013) was executed between parties. In terms of the said DBA, the sale consideration for the said unit was Rs. 24,75,000/- payable by the Plaintiff to defendant as per the payment plan annexed along with the DBA. Similarly Mr. Sat Bir, Plaintiffs grandfather was also allotted another unit with same admeasurements and another DBA dated 17.10.2013 was executed between Mr. Sat Bir and defendant on the terms and conditions of the allotment as stipulated thereunder.
Plaintiff as well as Mr. Sat Bir had opted for the "Assured Return"
plan, as stipulated in article 7 read with annexure-A of the DBA dated 11.12.2013 and DBA dated 17.10.2013. The defendant was bound to pay assured returns @ 12% per annum on the amount of basic price/ premium received by defendant on monthly basis and the same was payable till the date of offer of possession of the CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 3/ 15 Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd units in question. The defendant was also to handover the possession of the unit upon completion of the same within a period of 3 years from the date of execution of the DBAs.
Plaintiff and Mr. Sat Bir were always in full compliance of their obligations in terms of the respective DBAs and had duly paid the installments as per payment schedule. The entire sale consideration was paid for the said units to the defendant within stipulated time.
Plaintiff states that in the year 2018, she wanted to make an additional investment and applied to buy another unlockable unit admeasuring 565 square feet in the said project for which she paid Rs.2,24,000/- to the defendant towards the booking amount. The same was duly acknowledged by the defendant by a receipt dated 20.03.2018. Upon payment of the booking amount, plaintiff was allotted another unlockable unit admeasuring 565 square feet in the said project and developer buyer agreement dated 09.04.2018 (DBA) was executed between parties, as per which the sale consideration of Rs.31,07,500/- was to be paid by the plaintiff to defendant as per the payment plan stipulated in the DBA. Plaintiff had opted for the "Assured Return" plan for the units to be paid by defendant on monthly basis.
Plaintiff made a request to transfer the allotment of her earlier unit from Tower One to Tower One D, which was accepted by defendant. Accordingly a new letter of allotment dated 09.03.2018 CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 4/ 15 Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd was issued and the allotment of the plaintiff was changed to unit no. 1D-B-03-083 in Tower One D measuring 400 square feet on the same terms and conditions as agreed previously between parties in the agreement dated 11.12.2013. Similarly on request of Mr. Sat Bir his allotment was also changed to Tower One D measuring 610 Square Feet on the same terms and conditions as previously agreed between parties in the DBA dated 17.10.2013. Plaintiff states that after some time Mr. Sat Bir transferred his allotment in respect of his unit no. 1D-A-03-029 in favor of plaintiff and an agreement dated 13.01.2020 was executed between parties in respect of the said unit.
Plaintiff thus became the allottee in respect of the following units in the said project.
S. NO. Unit No. Tower No. Agreement dated
1. 1D-B-03-083 Tower One D 11.12.2013
2. 1D-A-03-029 Tower One D 13.01.2020
3. 1D-A-07-40 Tower One D 09.04.2018
Plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration in respect of the aforesaid three units within the stipulated time. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 38,48,738/- to defendant in respect of unit no. 029; a sum of Rs. 31,58,581/- in respect of unit no. 083 and Rs. 39,45,932/- in respect of unit no. 40 to the defendant.
CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 5/ 15Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd Plaint avers that the amount of such monthly assured returns payable by defendant to the plaintiff is as follows:
S. NO. Unit No. Monthly Assured Returns (INR)
1. 1D-B-03-083 24,750/-
2. 1D-A-03-029 30,195/-
3. 1D-A-07-40 29,521/-
Defendant was under a legal obligation to pay assured returns @12% per annum to Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that in breach of its legal obligations under the agreements, defendant stopped paying the assured returns to Plaintiff for the months commencing from February to august 2020 and unilaterally without any basis, adjusted the arrears of the assured returns for the said period towards the possession charges of the units, which were payable by plaintiff at the time of handing over of possession of the said units, even though possession was not being offered to the plaintiff. Further with effect from September 2020, defendant without any reason started paying only fifty percent of the assured returns payable and thereafter from march 2021 onwards, stopped making any such payment against the assured returns to Plaintiff.
Owing to the breach by defendant of its contractual obligations, plaintiff was constrained to approach the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regularity Authority (UPRERA) and filed three complaints under Section-31 of the RERA Act 2016 (RERA) against the defendant CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 6/ 15 Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd in respect of each of the said units as also detailed in para no. 16 of the plaint.
However during pendency of the aforesaid complaints before UPRERA, defendant approached the plaintiff to settle the matter amicably on the assurance that defendant shall not only continue making the payment of the assured returns to plaintiff till the date of offer of possession for all three units, but also make the payment of the arrears in respect of the units to plaintiff.
Based upon the assurances so given by Defendant, the plaintiff agreed to settle the matter and accordingly three Settlement Deeds, one in respect of each unit all dated 22.12.2021 were executed between parties as per the terms and conditions of settlement reached between parties.
In the settlement deeds, it was agreed by Defendant that the unpaid assured returns for each unit up to December 2021 would be paid to plaintiff after adjustment of the possession charges, immediately upon execution of the settlement deeds and calculation for the same was appended in each settlement deed as in table A. The amount payable by the defendant to plaintiff towards the unpaid assured returns upto December 2021, which after adjustment of the possession charges for Unit No.29 was a sum of Rs.3,01,950/-; towards unit no. 83 was Rs.7,42,500/- and for unit no. 40, the same was Rs.2,13,416/-. The defendant assured to continue making CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 7/ 15 Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd payment of monthly assured returns till the date of offer of possession of units in terms of the DBA.
Upon the execution of settlement deeds, defendant made payments of the balance returns upto December 2021 after adjustment, as mentioned in Settlement Deeds and resultantly, plaintiff withdrew the three complaints filed by her before UPRERA in terms of the settlement deeds. Defendant started making payment of monthly assured returns to plaintiff.
However the defendant stopped making payment of the monthly assured returns from December 2022 as mentioned in settlement deed. Defendant breached the terms of settlement deeds. Plaintiff sent several emails to defendant calling upon them to comply with its obligations under the settlement deeds, however defendant failed to make any payment after December 2022 in respect of all units.
On 28.03.2023, Defendant sent an e-mail to plaintiff stating that such payments were kept in abeyance by defendant till the completion of the said project. The said email is completely contrary to the terms of the settlement deeds entered into between parties as Defendant had no right to unilaterally modify the terms of the settlement deeds.
CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 8/ 15Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd Plaintiff has prayed for the payment of the arrears of monthly assured returns from January 2023 till the date of filling the instant suit alongwith interest in respect of each of the units as :
S.No. Unit No. Assured Returns Interest @ Total (INR) (From January 2023- 12% per March 2024) (INR) annum
1. 029 4,52,925/- 36,232/- 4,89,157/-
2. 083 3,71,250/- 29,704/- 4,00,954/-
3. 040 4,42,815/- 35,431/- 4,78,246/-
TOTAL 13,68,357/-
The subject matter of the suit is a "Commercial Dispute", as provided under Section 2 (1) (c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereafter as The CC Act).
Plaintiff has prayed for recovery of Rs.13,68,357/- against the defendant from January 2023 till march 2024 in terms of the settlement deeds alongwith interest pendente lite and future @12% per annum. Plaintiff has also prayed for specific performance of the settlement deeds dated 22.12.2021 executed between parties, by directing the defendant to continue making payments of the monthly assured returns till 31.12.2024 as stipulated in the settlement deeds.
CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 9/ 15Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd
3. Summons of the suit were sent upon the defendant. The record indicates that the defendant was duly served through speed post on 24.04.2024, however it chose not to appear before the court. The defendant did not file written statement and the statutory period for filing the same stood expired. Consequently, right of defendant to file the written statement stood forfeited by order dated 07.08.2024 and the matter was posted for the ex-parte evidence of plaintiff.
4. Even though the defendant remained ex-parte, still in an ex- parte case, the Court must confirm that the plaintiff's case is prima facie established. The mere absence of the defendant does not allow for the presumption that Plaintiff's entire case is true. While it is customary that no issues are framed in such cases, this does not relieve Plaintiff of the responsibility to prove its case. The Plaintiff is required to satisfy the Court with its evidence, and its burden is not lessened simply because of the defendant's absence. (Reliance; Nagar Palika Nigam v. Motilal, 1977 SCC OnLine MP 19) and C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda, (2012) 5 SCC .
5. Plaintiff in support of her case has examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A and proved upon the following documents:
Developer Buyer Agreement dtd. 11.12.2013 as Ex.PW1/1. Developer Buyer Agreement dtd. 09.04.2018 as Ex.PW1/2. Developer Buyer Agreement dtd 13.01.2020 as Ex.PW1/3. Three Settlement Deeds all dated 22.12.2021 as Ex.PW1/4 . Email dated 28.03.2023 issued by the defendant to the CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 10/ 15 Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd plaintiff as Ex.PW1/5.
Non-Starter Report dated 08.02.2024 as Ex.PW1/6. Ledger Accounts issued by the defendant to the plaintiff from time to time as Ex.PW1/7.
Certificate under Section-65B of IE Act, is Ex.PW1/8.
6. I have heard submissions as addressed by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and perused the entire material on record.
7. From the documents on record, I find that Plaintiff has been successful to prove her case. The same is discernible from the fact that the plaintiff had been allotted the unlockable units in question and as per agreement, she had opted for assured return plan, whereby she would get assured return @12% p.a. on the amount of basic price / premium received by Defendant on monthly basis. The Defendant however, unilaterally adjusted such returns against the possession charges and from the month 2020, the defendant started paying only 50% of the assured returns contrary to the agreement. The Defendant then completely stopped such returns from March, 2021. The record shows that a Settlement Agreement was reached between parties, whereby the Defendant undertook to continue to paying monthly assured returns to Plaintiff. The Defendant however, breached the conditions of the Settlement Agreement, which prompted the plaintiff to approach the Court by way of the instant suit for recovery of the assured returns, besides specific performance of the settlement Deed, seeking directions against Defendant to continue to pay such returns till 31.12.2024 alongwith pendent-lite and future @12% p.a. till its realization CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 11/ 15 Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd
8. Defendant has chosen not to appear or file its defence. An adverse inference has to be drawn against the Defendant, as under
Section 119 (g) of the Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023 [Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573].
9. On the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, ld. Counsel for Plaintiff relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohit Kochhar Vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers (DOD as 26.11.2024) and Adcon Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. Daulat & Ors. (DOD as 12.09.2001) and submits that the registered office of Defendant is situated in Jasola and further the settlement Deed were executed in Delhi and thus this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
10. It is fairly established by Plaintiff that Defendant breached the terms of Settlement Deeds. The case of Plaintiff has gone un- challenged and duly corroborated by documents and I have no reason to disbelieve the version of Plaintiff qua the arrears against monthly assured returns payable by the Defendant. Applying priori and posteriori reasoning, I am satisfied that Plaintiff has been able to prove her case against the Defendant for her claims for assured returns from January 2023 to March 2024 and from April 2024 to December, 2024 which comes to Rs.12,66,990/- in total. Plaintiff is further entitled for specific performance of the Settlement Deed and thus for assured returns till 31.12.2024 on monthly basis which comes to Rs.7,60,194/-.
CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 12/ 15Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd Interest
11. On the aspect of interest on the arrears, ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has claimed an interest @12% per annum pendente-lite and future till realization on the pending monthly assured returns.
12. Apropos the interest @12% per annum as claimed by plaintiff, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as 'M/s. Jindal Realcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/s. Laxmi Narain Ram Dass & Co, (para-
4) has observed as follows :
"4. The Supreme Court in a line of judgments has held that in view of changed economic scenario where there has been consistent fall in rates of interest, Courts must in accordance with the changed circumstances grant lesser rates of interest. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)"
..........(emphasis supplied).
CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 13/ 15Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd
13. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of R.F.A. No.823 of 2004 titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain (decided on 07.12.2018) has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Courts.
14. Keeping in view the mandate of settled law and Section-34 CPC, the interest of justice would be served if Plaintiff is granted simple rate of interest @9% per annum on the dues of Rs.12,66,990/- w.e.f. from January, 2023 till realization alongwith interest on the specific performance.
Hence, plaintiff is hereby granted simple rate of interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.12,66,990/- w.e.f. January, 2023 till its realization. Plaintiff is also entitled for interest @9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.7,60,194/- from January 2022 uptil 31.12.2024.
Relief
15. From the discussion as adumbrated herein-above, the suit of the Plaintiff stands decreed against the Defendant. The Plaintiff is entitled for :
(a) decree against Defendant for a sum of Rs.12,66,990/-
alongwith simple rate of interest @9% per annum w.e.f. January, 2023 pendente-lite and future till its realization.
CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 14/ 15Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd
(b) decree against Defendant for a sum of Rs.7,60,194/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from January 2022 uptil 31.12.2024.
c) Cost of the suit alongwith Pleader's fee of Rs.50,000/- against the Defendant.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DR DR RAVINDER
RAVINDER BEDI
Date:
BEDI 2026.04.02
Announced in open 16:51:36 +0530
Court on 02.04.2026 (Dr. Ravinder Bedi)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
South-East District, Saket Courts/New Delhi CS (COMM) 274/2024 Page No. 15/ 15 Ms. Megha Ohri Vs. M/s WTC Noida Development Company P. Ltd