Bombay High Court
Rahul Debey vs M/S. Satyam Developers Thr. Its ... on 14 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:2541
OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16609 OF 2024
Rahul Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Satyam Developers Through Its Proprietor & ...Respondents
Anr.
Mr. Girish Badiger, for the Petitioner.
Nishant Tripathi a/w Pranav Vaidya, i/b M Tripathi & Co. for
Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Priyansh R. Jain a/w Aprajita Mahto, Shraddha Nagaonkar,
Sagar Shetty for Respondent No. 2 (CIDCO).
CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE : JANUARY 14, 2026
Oral Judgement :
1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith, and by consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.
Context and Factual Background:
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Digitally signed by ASHWINI ASHWINI JANARDAN JANARDAN VALLAKATI VALLAKATI Date:
("NCDRC") dated March 18, 2024 ("Impugned Order"). The Impugned 2026.01.20 12:32:26 +0530 Order is a product of disposal of an Appeal filed by the Respondent Page 1 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc No.1, M/s Satyam Developers (" Respondent"), which was aggrieved by an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra ("State Commission") dated September 19, 2021 ("State Commission Order").
3. The State Commission had directed Satyam to hand over possession of a flat that was to be delivered by it to the Petitioner, Rahul Dubey ("Petitioner"), and also directed payment costs along with interest on the consideration amount at 18% per annum until actual delivery of possession. The Impugned Order upheld the State Commission Order, holding that it warrants no interference.
4. Yet, the NCDRC has set aside the direction to pay costs and also the payment of compensation. The NCDRC has also curtailed the interest rate on the amount granted by the State Commission for the delay in delivery of possession of the flat, from 18% to 6% per annum, and that too only until October 8, 2016, which is the date when Satyam claims to have first offered possession of the flat.
5. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Impugned Order due to the interference with the State Commission Order, despite the NCDRC having held that no interference was warranted. The Respondent has Page 2 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc accepted the Impugned Order without challenge and claims to have even deposited the reduced interest amount, as directed.
6. As for possession of the flat, the Respondent claims to have handed over possession in April 2023. This contention was not only stated across the bar on behalf of the Respondent when this Petition was heard, but also is recorded in the Impugned Order. Yet, the Petitioner has had to initiate execution proceedings, which are still pending, with the Respondent claiming that the Petitioner is yet to make complete payment of amounts owed. What amount is to be paid, against which, possession ought to be given, is set out in the State Commission Order, which has been upheld by the NCDRC, and accepted by the Respondent.
Analysis and Findings:
7. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the Impugned Order would withstand a challenge in the writ jurisdiction of this Court and whether it is arbitrary or well backed by reasons.
Towards this end, I have heard the Learned Advocates for the parties at length. With their assistance, I have examined the record. Page 3 of 14
January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc
8. Against this backdrop, at the threshold, the contents of the Impugned Order and the context of the State Commission Order endorsed by it, should be examined.
State Commission Order - Operative Part:
9. The operative part of the State Commission Order is reproduced below:-
(i) Consumer complaint is hereby partly allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/-to be paid by opponent no. 1 no complainant.
(ii) Opponent no.1 is hereby directed to handover possession of Flat No.1103, 11th Floor, of the building named Satyam Majestic, situated on land of Sector 18 of Village Ulwe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad to complainant on getting amount of Rs.70,000/- towards society formation charges, amount of Rs.8,550/- towards service tax, amount of Rs.4,07,315/-
towards interest on delayed payments and amount of Rs.16,717/- towards other taxes.
(iii) Opponent no.1 is hereby directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount by complainant with opponents from the date of deposit till handing over possession of flat by opponent no.1 to complainant.
(iv) The opponent no.1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ to complainant.
(v) The amount of costs and compensation is to be paid by the opponent no.1 to complainant within a period of thirty days from the date Page 4 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc of passing of this order, otherwise, opponent no.1 will have to pay interest on this amount @18% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization of this amount by complainant from opponent no. 1.
(vi) Consumer Complaint is hereby dismissed 29 against opponent no.2.
[Emphasis Supplied] Impugned Order:
10. The Impugned Order is explicit in its terms that the State Commission Order does not warrant any interference. Para 10 of the said order is extracted below:-
10. I have gone through the Orders of the State Commission, and the grounds and arguments raised in the present Appeal, I am inclined to the opinion that the Appellant/Complainant has reiterated its contentions which it had already raised before the State Commission and no new substantial argument has been raised here to warrant interference to the well-reasoned Order of the State Commission. As per the Agreement, the possession of the Flat was to be given by the end of December 2014. The builder obtained an Occupancy Certificate on 29.09.2016 and offered possession on 08.10.2016. There is a delay of around 20 months from the proposed date of possession. Therefore, it is evident that the Builder has committed a deficiency of service under the Act. Regarding the issue of parking, I concur with the Builder's argument, as there is no evidence in the record, Agreement, or written documentation to support the claim that parking was promised to the Complainant.
[Emphasis Supplied] Page 5 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc
11. The operative part of the Impugned Order is reproduced below:-
a. The direction for payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is set aside.
b. The Petitioner/ Builder shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. simple interest on the deposited amount to the Complainant from the promised date of possession till offer of possession i.e. 08.10.2016 within eight weeks of this order. Any delay beyond eight weeks shall attract interest @ 9% for the same period.
c. The Builder shall provide electricity and water connection to the Complainant's Flat within six weeks of this Order, if not provided already.
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. It is apparent that the NCDRC has squarely found in Paragraph 10, that there is deficiency of service on Satyam's part and has upheld the State Commission Order. The NCDRC has held that there is no basis to interfere with the well-reasoned State Commission Order. As stated above, in Paragraph 8 of the Impugned Order, the NCDRC has also recorded Satyam's own contention that possession of the flat had been handed over in April 2023.
13. Therefore, I examined the Impugned Order to see the reasons and the basis on which, despite finding of deficiency in service, and Page 6 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc despite finding nothing to warrant interference with the State Commission Order, the NCDRC set aside the award of compensation and costs; cut down the interest rate from 18% to 6% and also curtailed the period for which interest was payable by the Respondent. NCDRC's Interference Examined:
14. Regrettably, there is nothing in the Impugned Order that justifies two of the three deviations made by the NCDRC even while upholding and endorsing the findings of the State Commission.
15. First, there is no basis to set aside the award of compensation and costs. There is no reasoning whatsoever about why the award of compensation ought to be set aside. On the contrary, the setting aside of the compensation flies in the teeth of the explicit finding that the Respondent was deficient in providing service to the Petitioner by delaying delivery of possession of the flat beyond the time commitment in the contract. Likewise, there is not a whisper of a discussion on the justification or need to set aside the award of costs.
16. Second, the interest period is curtailed to October 8, 2016. This is the date on which the Respondent had claimed to have offered possession. It is the demand of monies at that time that led to the Page 7 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc Petitioner objecting to the excess demand, which led to the proceedings before the State Commission. The NCDRC has held that the State Commission Order is well-reasoned and no case for interference was made out.
17. It is seen from the record that on October 8, 2016, the Respondent demanded a further payment of Rs. 1,90,000 and (interest of Rs.1,36,613), and Rs. 8,500 towards service tax. The Petitioner appears to have paid a sum of Rs. 6,10,000 on November 19, 2016. Disputes persisted between the parties that led to the proceedings before the State Commission. The State Commission directed that possession must be handed over upon receipt of Rs. 5,02,582, the break-up of which is set out in the relief at sub-para (ii) in the operative part of the State Commission Order, which is also extracted above. Aggrieved by this direction, the Respondent filed an appeal before the NCDRC.
18. In the course of the proceedings before the NCDRC, the Respondent claimed to have handed over possession to the Petitioner in April 2023. It is seen from the record that the parties still had disputes over the electricity and water connection. That apart, various deficiencies claimed by the Petitioner were rectified and compliance was Page 8 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc reported. On electricity, the Respondent stated in writing that since the NCDRC proceedings were pending, no comment was being made. It is clear from sub-para (c) of the operative part of the Impugned Order that the NCDRC directed that electricity and water supply connections be provided in six weeks if not already provided. The parties are still engaged in the execution proceedings.
19. Therefore, having accepted the State Commission's findings of deficiency in service and also having squarely noticed the Respondent's own claim that possession had been handed over in April 2023, there is no justification whatsoever in the Impugned Order as to why the interest period ought to have been curtailed to a date in 2016. The State Commission had granted interest until the handing over of possession, and execution proceedings for possession, are still underway. There is no explanation in the Impugned Order as to why the original offer of possession purportedly made on October 8, 2016 was valid and fair for the interest period to stop there. This does not sit well with the emphatic endorsement of the State Commission Order and the findings of deficiency including the delay.
20. There is no analysis as to how possession can be said to have been handed over in the eyes of law on October 8, 2016. In the very Page 9 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc same Impugned Order, the NCDRC felt the need to direct that electricity and water supply connections be provided - a direction issued in March 2024, noticing a claim of possession being handed over in April 2023, and yet, without reasoning, the NCDRC thought it fit to curtail the interest period on the amounts that had been paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent, to October 8, 2016.
21. As regards the rate of interest, the deviation on the interest rate finds some explanation in the Impugned Order. In Paragraph 11, the NCDRC has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in DLF v. Capital Greens1, in which the Supreme Court reduced interest awarded at the rate of 7% per annum to 6% per annum, on the basis that the property value appreciation in Bengaluru could not be the benchmark for appreciation in Gurgaon. Indeed, the NCDRC has made no analysis of property value appreciation in Gurgaon to compare it with appreciation in Raigad, but in reliance on the aforesaid judgement, the interest rate has been curtailed.
22. The property being in Raigad, indeed, interest at the rate of 18% to benchmark against property value escalation does appear exorbitant. The reliance by the NCDRC on DLF v. Capital Greens does 1 DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Assn. - (2021) 5 SCC 537 Page 10 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc provide a reasonable semblance of basis for reduction of the interest rate. It is well settled law that every perceived wrong need not be cured in exercise of the writ jurisdiction that apart, I note that the NCDRC as an expert tribunal has at least pointed to a reasonable basis to alter the interest rate.
Conclusion:
23. Therefore, without a whisper on the need to make the other two deviations from the State Commission Order, even purporting to wholeheartedly endorse the State Commission Order,. the Impugned Order betrays arbitrariness in making those two interventions. Besides, the two interventions i.e. the setting aside of compensation and costs, and the curtailment of the interest period are contrary to the Impugned Order's emphatic findings of deficiency and to the Respondent's own statement that possession was handed over in April 2023.
24. The record also contains material to show that the Respondent claimed certain amounts as being payable in respect of handing over possession even in its email dated July 3, 2023.
Admittedly, all other issues of deficiency in workmanship were claimed to have been resolved by that date. A list of such works to deal with the problems identified by the Petitioner is seen as an attachment to the Page 11 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc Respondent's email dated July 3, 2023, which is found on Pages 205 and 206, in the Respondent's Affidavit in Reply. In these circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the inexplicable and unexplained curtailment of the interest period to October 8, 2016.
25. It is noteworthy that the Respondent is quite satisfied with the outcome in the Impugned Order, with the interest period being curtailed and interest rate being reduced, despite having purportedly lost the appeal against the State Commission Order. No challenge has been mounted by the Respondent whose advocate fairly states that quietus has been given to the matter by his client, after the Impugned Order.
26. Therefore, the findings of deficiency have attained finality. Necessarily, the two deviations in the teeth of these findings have rendered the aforesaid two interventions untenable and arbitrary for being devoid of reasons and also for being in conflict with the core findings explicit in the Impugned Order. Therefore, there is neither any express nor implied reason in the Impugned Order to support the two deviations made.
27. Consequently, a case has been made out in exercise of the writ jurisdiction to set right the arbitrariness in the Impugned Order. Page 12 of 14
January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc Leaving aside the interest rate applied by the NCDRC, the other two deviations call for being quashed. Therefore:
a) Paragraph 12(a) of the Impugned Order, namely the setting aside of the State Commission's direction to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- and compensation of Rs.1 lakh, is hereby quashed and set aside. Such costs and compensation shall be payable by the Respondent in compliance with the State Commission Order within a period of four weeks from today;
b) Paragraph 12(b) of the Impugned Order, insofar as it curtails the interest period until the " offer of possession i.e. 08.10.2016" is quashed and set aside; and
c) Instead, interest shall be payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum until possession of the flat is actually handed over, as set out in the State Commission Order.
28. No interference is being made to the interest rate set out in the Impugned Order, since the semblance of reason for curtailment of the interest rate is well backed by the adoption of the approach adopted Page 13 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 ::: OJ-38-WP-16609-2024.doc by the Supreme Court in DLF v. Capital Greens. The rate of 6% per annum is not irrelevant and out of sync with the location of the flat i.e. in Raigad as compared with location in a metro location such as Bengaluru or Gurgaon.
29. Since execution proceedings are underway, it is completely up to the parties to take up such contentions as may be raised in execution before that forum. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction, the limited intervention being made in this judgment is to correct the arbitrary and unreasoned interference effected to the State Commission Order by the NCDRC despite holding that no interference is warranted.
30. Therefore, the Petition is partially allowed in the aforesaid terms, quashing and setting aside the two deviations made in the Impugned Order from the State Commission Order. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
31. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's website.
[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] Page 14 of 14 January 14, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:25:43 :::