Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Vijay Gupta vs The Estate Officer (H) Greater Mohali, ... on 20 February, 2019
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6060 OF 2016
VIJAY GUPTA APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
THE ESTATE OFFICER (H), GREATER MOHALI
AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10180 OF 2016
THE ESTATE OFFICER, GREATER MOHALI
AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
VIJAY GUPTA RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
These appeals arise out of a consumer dispute which was instituted before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), in the form of Consumer Case 750 of 2015.
Vijay Gupta (appellant in the first of the two appeals and hereinafter referred to as “the buyer”) applied for allotment in a housing scheme managed by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (“GMADA”). He was informed that his application had been declared to be Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.02.21 successful at a draw of lots. On 22 May 2012, a letter 17:03:56 IST Reason: of intent was issued to the buyer. The relevant clause in regard to the interest payable to the buyer in the 2 event of delay is as follows:
“3. Ownership and possession ***
(ii) Possession of apartment shall be handed over after completion of development works at site in a period of 36 months from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent. In case for any reason, the Authority is unable to deliver the possession of apartments within stipulated period, allottee shall have the right to withdraw from the scheme by moving an application to the Estate Officer, in which case, the Authority shall refund the entire amount deposited by the applicant along with 8% interest compounded annually. Apart from this, there shall be no other liability of the Authority.” The buyer deposited a total amount of Rs 66,24,000.
Since possession of the apartment was not handed over, he filed a consumer dispute seeking refund. The NCDRC, by its order dated 10 March 2016, ordered a refund, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum compounded annually and, in addition, directed GMADA to refund the service tax dues, penalty charges for delayed deposits, litigation charges and compensation in the amount of Rs 1 lakh.
Both the buyer and GMADA are in appeal. During the course of the hearing, it is not in dispute that the order for refund, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum compounded annually, has been complied with and the payment has been made to the buyer. 3
GMADA has pressed the appeal insofar as the direction for refund of service tax and the other dues is concerned, including the payment of litigation expenses and compensation quantified at Rs 1 lakh.
The buyer, in appeal, has sought enhancement of the interest which has been awarded.
Insofar as the appeal of GMADA is concerned, we are of the view that the NCDRC was not justified in directing refund of the service tax. The dues on account of service tax are statutory dues. Hence, there was no reason to issue a direction for refund of the statutory dues. Similarly, since the buyer has already been paid interest at the rate of 8% per annum compounded annually, a further direction for payment of litigation charges and compensation was not required.
Insofar as the appeal by the buyer is concerned, we are of the view that having regard to the terms of the agreement between the parties, the direction for payment of interest at the rate of 8% per annum compounded annually is justified and no further enhancement has to be made.
Under the circumstances, we partly allow the appeal filed by GMADA and direct that apart from the payment of interest at the rate of 8% per annum compounded annually (which admittedly has been effected, together with the refund of the principal), no further directions were necessary. The rest of the directions contained in the 4 order passed by the NCDRC shall stand set aside. The appeal filed by the buyer shall stand dismissed. Accordingly, Civil Appeal No.6060 of 2016 shall stand dismissed and Civil Appeal No.10180 of 2016 shall stand partly allowed in the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
.............................J. (DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD) .............................J. (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 20, 2019 5 ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).6060/2016 VIJAY GUPTA Appellant(s) VERSUS THE ESTATE OFFICER (H), GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 10180/2016 (XVII) Date : 20-02-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Adv.
Mr. Rit Arora, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Rai, Adv.
Mr. Chetan Dhingra, Adv.
Ms. Swati Arya, Adv.
Ms. Divya Roy, AOR
Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, AOR
Ms. Vandana Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Chaturvedi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, AOR
Ms. Vandana Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Adv.
Mr. Rit Arora, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Rai, Adv.
Mr. Chetan Dhingra, Adv.
Ms. Swati Arya, Adv.
Ms. Divya Roy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil Appeal No.6060 of 2016 shall stand dismissed and Civil Appeal No.10180 of 2016 shall stand partly 6 allowed in terms of the signed order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)