#Real Estate

The West Bengal State Consumer Commission held that a developer cannot deliver possession without a valid occupancy certificate, awarding the complainant ₹5 lakh compensation and ₹50,000 costs, and ordering delivery of the flat with the certificate within six weeks. The ruling safeguards homebuyers from premature possession and underscores the developer’s obligation to secure statutory clearances before handing over property.

WB State CDRC awarded ₹11,73,420 for flat-area shortfall (market value) and ordered interest plus possession letter within 45 days. It confirms that area deficiency in property is a deficiency of service, entitling buyers to market-based compensation.

The NCDRC held that developers cannot forfeit more than 10% of the basic sale price as earnest money, directing Experion Developers to refund the excess amount paid by homebuyers with interest. The ruling protects consumers from unfair forfeiture clauses in real estate agreements and sets a benchmark for similar disputes across India.

The Bombay HC held that a promoter may terminate an allotment for non-payment of stamp duty under RERA, setting aside Maha RERA and Appellate Tribunal orders. It directed refund of Rs.12.3 lakh with interest at SBI MCLR+2% from July 2016, affirming that payment of statutory charges is a condition precedent to the allottee's rights.

The NCDRC ruled that third-party cheques cannot constitute a refund without proof of homebuyer authorization, setting aside a State Commission order that had limited relief to refund. The Commission ordered specific performance with a tiered remedy: possession, an alternative flat, or refund at 18% contractual interest plus 21% penal interest for default within three months.

The Delhi State Consumer Commission held that the two-year limitation period under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 begins from the date of the offer of possession letter, not the actual physical handover. The complaint filed in November 2020 was time-barred as the offer letters dated June and August 2017 triggered limitation, which expired well before the COVID-19 extension period could apply.

Omaxe Ltd’s petition under Section 37(1)(c) was dismissed, leaving the arbitral award that orders the builder to pay compensation for delayed possession, with 15% interest, untouched. The ruling clarifies that courts may intervene only for evident misconduct or jurisdictional error, not merely to alter award amounts. Homebuyers and developers in builder-buyer agreements are directly impacted.

West Bengal State Consumer Commission ruled that the cause of action for flat registration persists until conveyance deed execution, directing opposite parties to complete registration within 45 days. The order clarifies that deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 continues until the deed is registered.

Kolkata ITAT rules the 10% tolerance band under Section 43CA applies to past transfers, granting relief where sale consideration is within 10% of stamp duty valuation. The ruling impacts real estate transactions assessed under the Income Tax Act, offering retrospective clarity for taxpayers facing valuation disputes.

Buyers are entitled to a full refund of consideration with interest when a builder fails to deliver the occupancy certificate or execute the conveyance deed within a reasonable time, as this constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The ruling establishes a clear precedent that possession without statutory compliance is not valid possession, protecting homebuyers from prolonged legal limbo and financial exploitation.

When flat buyers stop getting their promised possession date, the developer is rarely the only name on the legal notice. Landowners who signed a joint development agreement years earlier, often in exchange for a fraction of the eventual project value, suddenly find themselves lis

Delhi State Consumer Commission rules that buying a single residential plot for personal use-even through a broker-falls under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, entitling buyers to remedies for deficiency in service. This clarifies the scope of consumer rights in real estate transactions, reinforcing protections for individual plot buyers against unfair trade practices.

Allahabad HC rules that buyers are entitled to a full refund of deposits with 6% interest from the date of payment if builders fail to deliver possession, even due to pending arbitration. The judgment reinforces consumer rights under equitable relief, ensuring financial protection for homebuyers in stalled real estate projects.

NCDRC holds that builders cannot forfeit excess payments or cancel allotments unilaterally under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The ruling mandates refund of amounts paid beyond the agreed sale consideration and invalidates arbitrary cancellation clauses, reinforcing consumer rights in real estate transactions.

Delhi State Consumer Commission rules that developers failing to obtain completion and occupancy certificates commit deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, entitling buyers to compensation. The ruling reinforces contractual obligations in real estate transactions and impacts homebuyers' rights to lawful possession.