Topic
Delhi High Court confirmed that a seller may retain only the expressly stipulated earnest-money amount, rejecting forfeiture of the full ₹17.5 million paid. The ruling limits Section 74 ICA to penal clauses and excludes later part-payments, urging parties to define earnest money separately.
The West Bengal State Consumer Commission ruled that a mere inquiry about resale potential, without clear intent to terminate, cannot be construed as contract rescission. This protects buyers from punitive deductions when seeking clarification, reinforcing that contractual remedies must be grounded in unambiguous communication, not speculative correspondence.
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a statutory authority cannot forfeit ₹9.46 crores in earnest money for failing to deliver encroachment-free land as promised in public auctions. The court directed a full refund with 10% interest, reinforcing that state entities cannot escape liability for contractual breaches under the guise of administrative discretion.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a registered sale agreement remains enforceable for specific performance if 96% of the consideration was paid, even if legal heirs challenge it posthumously. The court emphasized that documentary evidence prevails over unsupported oral testimony, reinforcing the binding nature of duly executed agreements in property disputes.
Delhi State Consumer Commission rules that developers' failure to deliver possession is a continuing deficiency in service, extending limitation periods. The Commission also caps forfeiture of earnest money at 10% of the sale price, deeming higher deductions unreasonable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This sets a precedent for homebuyers seeking relief against delayed projects and excessive penalties.
The Delhi State Consumer Commission ruled that failure to deliver plot possession constitutes a continuous deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, and any forfeiture of earnest money beyond 10% of the sale consideration is unconscionable and unenforceable. This sets a critical precedent for homebuyers facing unjust penalties from developers who delay or deny possession, reinforcing buyer protections in real estate transactions.