State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anu Manchanda W/O. Gagan Manchanda vs Sushma Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Through Its ... on 5 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/28/2025
WITH
SC/4/IA/231/2025 (AMENDMENT OF REJOINDER)
ANU MANCHANDA W/o. Gagan manchanda
PERMANENT ADDRESS - APARTMENT NO. 16195, TOWER 16, 19TH FLOORVARTHUR
GUNJAR ROAD, PRESTIGE LAKESIDE HABITAT , BENGALURU URBAN,KARNATAKA.
GAGAN MANCHANDA S/o. Sh. Bansi Lal Manchanda
PERMANENT ADDRESS - APARTMENT NO. 16195, TOWER 16, FLOOR 19THVARTHUR
GUNJAR ROAD, PRESTIGE LAKESIDE HABITAT , BENGALURU URBAN,KARNATAKA.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
SUSHMA BUILDTECH PVT.LTD. Through its Director, sh. Binder pal mittal & sh. Bharat mittal
BUSINESS ADDRESS - ELANTE MALL, UNIT NO. B-107, BUSINESS COMPLEX INDUSTRIAL
AREA PHASE I , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
BINDER PAL MITTAL C/o. M/s Sushma Buildtech Pvt.ltd.
PERMANENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO. 36SECTOR 8 , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
BUSINESS ADDRESS - ELANTE MALL, UNIT B-107, BUSINESS COMPLEXINDUSTRIAL AREA
PHASE I , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
BHARAT MITTAL C/o. Sushma Buildtech Pvt Ltd
PERMANENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO 36SECTOR 8 , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
BUSINESS ADDRESS - ELANTE MALL, UNIT NO B-107, BUSINESS COMPLEX INDUSTRIAL
AREA PHASE I , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
ANU MANCHANDA W/o. Gagan manchanda
DATED: 05/03/2026
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint No. : 28 of 2025 Date of Institution : 25.03.2025 Date of Decision : 05.03.2026
1. Anu Manchanda, Aged 47 years, W/o Sh. Gagan Manchanda
2. Gagan Manchanda, Aged 47 years, S/o Sh. Bansi Lal Manchanda Both Residents of Apartment No. 16195, Tower 16, 19th Floor, Varthur Gunjar Road, Prestige Lakeside Habitat, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560087 ....Complainants Versus
1. Sushma Buildtech Limited, Through its Managing Director, Office: Elante Mall, Unit No. B-107, Business Complex at Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh - 160002.
2. Sh. Binder Pal Mittal, Managing Director, Sushma Buildtech Limited, Office: Elante Mall, Business Complex at Unit No. B-107, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh - 160002. Residential Address: House No. 36, Sector 8, Chandigarh - 160009.
3. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director, Sushma Buildtech Limited, Office: Elante Mall, Unit No. B-107, Business Complex at Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh - 160002 Residential Address: House No. 36, Sector 8, Chandigarh - 160009.
....Opposite Parties
BEFORE:- JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT
MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER
PRESENT:- Sh.Jagan Nath Bhandari, Advocate for the complainants-on VC.
Sh. Vishal Singal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI
The complainants, after coming across advertisements issued by the Opposite Parties regarding their real estate project "Sushma Crescent," visited the opposite parties' office and expressed interest in purchasing a residential unit. They booked a Duplex Penthouse bearing Unit No. 0-905, 9th Floor, O Tower, admeasuring 1705 sq. ft., situated at Village Kishanpura, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, for a basic sale price of Rs. 64,00,000/-. On 13.09.2021, an Allotment Letter and Buyer's Agreement were executed, and the complainants paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 64,00,000/- (Rs. 10,00,000/- through cheque and Rs. 54,00,000/- in cash), which was duly acknowledged by the opposite parties. On the same date, a Buyback Agreement was also executed, under which the opposite parties agreed to repurchase the unit for Rs. 64,00,000/- after the stipulated period, and in furtherance thereof issued 36 post-dated cheques towards monthly assured returns along with a cheque dated 16.09.2024 for Rs. 64,00,000/- towards the buyback amount. As per Clause 12(d) of the Buyer's Agreement, possession was to be delivered within 36 months, i.e., on or before 13.09.2024. While the initial assured return cheques were honoured, the cheques for June 2024 to August 2024 were recalled by the opposite parties on the assurance of replacement. The buyback cheque dated 16.09.2024, when presented, was dishonoured with the remarks "Payment Stopped by Drawer" and, despite assurances, was again dishonoured upon re-presentation on 03.10.2024. The opposite parties have neither honoured the buyback commitment nor handed over possession of the unit despite receipt of the full consideration and expiry of the stipulated possession period. The complainants have initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the competent court at Bengaluru, and the present complaint is being filed for enforcement of the Buyer's Agreement, possession of the unit, delay compensation, and other consequential reliefs, as the acts of the opposite parties amount to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The complaint has been contested by the opposite parties by way of filing written version, wherein following pleas/objections were inter alia taken as under:-
(i). that the complainants did not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (7) of CPA 2019, which says that a purchaser and user of commercial services are not covered under the definition of consumer;
(ii). that under the buyback option, the complainants were already handed over cheque of Rs.64 lacs dated 16.09.2024 itself to secure the payment made by them
(iii). that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint;
(iv). that in the face of provisions of RERA under which the agreements have been executed the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred qua any dispute in respect of the unit in question;
(v). that this complaint is barred by limitation;
On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case qua purchase of the unit in question by the complainants, execution of agreement and MOU, prayer has been made to dismiss this complaint with cost.
3. In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in their complaint and controverted those contained in written reply of the opposite parties.
4. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case including the written arguments filed by the parties concerned, very carefully.
6. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, it is evident that after execution of the Buyer's Agreement dated 13.09.2021 (Annexure C-2) in respect of the unit in the project "Sushma Crescent", the complainants admittedly entered into a separate Buyback Agreement/MOU dated 13.09.2021 (Annexure C-4) with the opposite parties. Under the said arrangement, the opposite parties agreed to repurchase the unit for the same consideration amount of Rs. 64,00,000/- after the stipulated period and, in furtherance thereof, issued a cheque dated 16.09.2024 for Rs. 64,00,000/- (Annexure C-5) towards the principal amount, along with some post-dated cheque . It is an admitted position that the complainants accepted the said arrangement and received the cheque representing the entire principal amount of the unit, under buyback option.
7. The record further reveals that the cheque dated 16.09.2024 was presented by the complainants before the ICICI Bank and stood dishonoured with the remarks "Payment Stopped by Drawer" (Annexure C-6). It is also not in dispute that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have already been initiated by the complainants before the competent court at Bengaluru and are presently pending adjudication.
8. From the aforesaid admitted facts, it clearly emerges that by entering into the Buyback Agreement/MOU and accepting the cheque of Rs. 64,00,000/- aforesaid towards the principal amount in respect of the unit in question, as its buyback to the opposite parties, the parties altered their original contractual obligations under the Buyer's Agreement. The subsequent buyback arrangement, coupled with issuance and acceptance of the cheque for the entire sale consideration, constitutes a fresh and independent contract between the parties, thereby resulting in novation of the original contract within the meaning of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which says that if the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed. The basic requirement of Section 62 was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Construction & Ors v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah (2000) 1 SCC 596, wherein it was held that novation requires complete substitution of new contract in place of old contract and only under this condition the original contract is not fulfilled. The new replacement contract will cancel or completely modify the terms of the original contract. In the case of Ramdayal v. Maji Devdiji, AIR 1956 Raj 12 it was observed that novation occurs by introducing new conditions into the contract or by introducing new parties. A novation contract requires one party to agree to cancel or settle its obligation or debt Thus, in the present case, in our considered opinion, once the parties substituted the original arrangement of delivery of possession with a buyback obligation and especially, accepting the cheque of Rs. 64,00,000/- aforesaid, by the complainants, towards the principal amount in respect of the unit in question, as its buyback to the opposite parties, the original cause of action based upon the Buyer's Agreement ceased to survive in its original form.
9. In view of the above, and particularly in light of the admitted pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with respect to the cheque representing the entire principal amount, the dispute now primarily pertains to enforcement of the buyback arrangement and recovery of the cheque amount. Admittedly, the complainants, having elected to invoke their remedy under the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the buyback cheque, cannot simultaneously seek enforcement of the original Buyer's Agreement before this Commission, seeking directions to the opposite parties, for possession of the unit in question, as the same would amount to pursuing inconsistent remedies arising out of a substituted contract.
10. Accordingly, this Commission is of the considered view that the present consumer complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost, on the ground that the original Buyer's Agreement stood novated by virtue of the subsequent Buyback Agreement/MOU and issuance of the cheque for the entire principal amount, which is already the subject matter of separate proceedings.
11. However, the complainants are left at liberty to avail such other remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law, including the proceedings already initiated and/or any other appropriate civil or criminal remedies, if so advised.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, forthwith
14. File be consigned to Record Room after completion.
Pronounced 05.03.2026 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER Rg.
..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT ..................
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER