Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the allotment of a three-bedroom apartment (Flat No. 6403) by Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (appellant, later amalgamated with Macrotech Developers Ltd.) to Haresh (respondent) in 2013. The respondent paid Rs. 92,50,744 as advance out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 4,64,86,145 and requested documents for executing a registered agreement. The appellant cancelled the allotment on 28.06.2013, leading the respondent to file a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). During proceedings, the NCDRC forfeited the appellant's right to file a written statement on 19.11.2013 and passed an ad interim order restraining the appellant from creating third-party rights over Flat No. 6403. Despite this, the appellant alienated the flat on 24.11.2014. The NCDRC allowed the complaint on 17.02.2016, setting aside the cancellation and directing execution of the agreement. In execution, the appellant sought modification to substitute Flat No. 6503 (identical flat on the next floor) as the original flat had been sold. The NCDRC rejected this application on 16.12.2016, noting the appellant's contempt. The Supreme Court, by order dated 20.03.2018, allowed the appeal and directed substitution of the alternate flat, with the same payment terms. The order was not implemented, leading to the present miscellaneous application. The Supreme Court, after multiple hearings and mediation, directed the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,72,35,401, which was done on 30.09.2024. The amount was released to the appellant on 30.01.2025, and possession of Flat No. 6503 was handed over to the respondent on 05.02.2025, subject to court orders. The remaining issue was the quantification of dues. The appellant claimed Rs. 4,96,52,565, including interest, other charges, taxes, and delayed payment charges. The respondent admitted liability for Rs. 2,15,884 towards legal charges, utility connection, and society formation, and agreed to pay Rs. 15,37,126 for infrastructure and club membership if directed, but denied other amounts relying on Sections 4 and 6 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). The Supreme Court noted that the appellant failed to provide required documents (building map, carpet area, NOCs) from the beginning, violated the stay order by alienating the flat, and did not disclose carpet areas of either flat. The court held that the appellant's defaults disentitled it from claiming interest on delayed payments and certain other charges. The court directed that the respondent pay Rs. 2,15,884 (legal charges, utility connection, society formation) and Rs. 15,37,126 (infrastructure and club membership), totaling Rs. 17,53,010, within four weeks. The appellant was directed to provide necessary documents and execute the agreement within two weeks of payment. The court also directed that the appellant pay interest at 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 3,72,35,401 from the date of deposit (30.09.2024) until the date of release (30.01.2025) to the respondent, and that the respondent pay interest at 9% per annum on the balance consideration from the due date as per MOFA until 30.09.2024, subject to adjustment. The miscellaneous application was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Real Estate Law - Allotment and Cancellation - Sections 4, 6 Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 - Appellant allotted flat to respondent, later cancelled allotment; NCDRC set aside cancellation and directed execution of agreement - Appellant violated stay order by alienating flat - Supreme Court directed substitution of alternate flat - Held that appellant's failure to provide documents and violation of stay order disentitled it from claiming certain charges (Paras 1-12). B) Consumer Law - Execution of Order - Modification of Decree - Appellant sought modification to substitute alternate flat after alienating original flat despite stay - NCDRC rejected modification; Supreme Court allowed appeal and directed substitution - Held that modification was permissible as no contempt petition was filed, but appellant's conduct was relevant for costs (Paras 4-6). C) Equitable Relief - Adjustment of Equities - Appellant violated stay order and failed to provide documents; respondent retained balance consideration - Court directed adjustment of equities by allowing certain charges but disallowing interest on delayed payments due to appellant's defaults - Held that appellant is entitled to maintenance charges but not to interest on balance consideration for the period of delay caused by its own conduct (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
What amount is due and payable by the respondent to the appellant for the alternate apartment after the appellant violated a stay order and alienated the original apartment?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed the respondent to pay Rs. 2,15,884 (legal charges, utility connection, society formation) and Rs. 15,37,126 (infrastructure and club membership), totaling Rs. 17,53,010, within four weeks. The appellant was directed to provide necessary documents and execute the agreement within two weeks of payment. The court also directed that the appellant pay interest at 9% per annum on Rs. 3,72,35,401 from 30.09.2024 to 30.01.2025 to the respondent, and that the respondent pay interest at 9% per annum on the balance consideration from the due date as per MOFA until 30.09.2024, subject to adjustment. The miscellaneous application was disposed of.
Law Points
- Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act
- 1963
- Sections 4 and 6
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Equitable adjustment
- Interest calculation
- Breach of stay order
