Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs Abhishek Khanna on 11 January, 2021

M/S Suneja Towers Private Limited vs Anita Merchant on 18 April, 2023

22. The synthesis of the cited decisions aforesaid, for the present purpose, leads to the result that none of these decisions could be taken as guide for award of compound interest in an action before the Consumer Fora under the Act of 1986. In regard to such cases, in our view, the forum would be entitled to provide for the amount of compensation as deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the negligence of the opposite party and consequential injury suffered by the consumer. The 62 forum could award even punitive damages but that would depend on the relevant circumstances and for that matter, the relevant factors shall have to be specified. In regard to such awarding of compensation and/or punitive damages, the forum concerned could take all the relevant factors into account and award such amount as deemed fit and necessary but ordinarily, in the matters of money refund, awarding of compound interest as a measure of punitive damages is not envisaged. As to what would be the quantum of compensation and for that matter, what would be the quantum of punitive damages, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case but while awarding so, the forum would be advised to specify all the relevant factors and basis of its quantification. A shortcut of awarding compound interest is neither envisaged by the statute nor do we find any such term of contract between the parties or any such usage. As noticed, the attempt to seek compound interest in such real estate dealings did not meet with approval of this Court and in the case of Ireo Grace Realtech (supra) such a claim was declined by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court for having no nexus with the commercial realities of the prevailing market. Going by the principles governing the nature of jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora as also the principles enunciated by this Court including those in the 3-Judge Bench decision, we need to disapprove the proposition of 63 awarding compound interest in the cases of monetary refund in such dealings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Venkataraman Krishnamurthy vs Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd on 22 February, 2024

21. Reliance is placed by the respondent-company on the decision of this Court in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna5 in the context of the rate of interest payable on the refund. However, we find that the aforestated decision is distinguishable on facts. Therein, the contract condition provided for payment of delay compensation and in the event of such delay exceeding twelve months from the end of the grace period, the 5 (2021) 3 SCC 241 18 allottee could opt for termination of the contract and for refund of the amount paid by him. The contract condition, however, provided that the refund would be made without any interest thereon. It is in this factual scenario that this Court, in equity, decreed that the amount should be refunded with simple interest thereon @ 9% p.a. On the other hand, in the present case the Agreement itself provided for the interest component on the refund amount and stipulated the rate thereof as 12% p.a. That being so, the respondent-company cannot seek reduction of the rate of interest contrary to the agreed rate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P V Kumar - Full Document

Rajiv Sarin vs M/S Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. on 17 February, 2023

4. It is not in dispute that in the previous round of litigation, the three­Judge Bench of this Court in the case of “Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited vs. Abhishek Khanna and Others”, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 241, has dealt with the issue of interest and according to the said judgment, the interest was directed to be paid in the peculiar facts and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2023.02.18 13:02:06 IST circumstances with effect from the due date of delivery of Reason: possession, which in the present case is awarded by the National Commission by the impugned order.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1