Homebuyers can't seek reimbursement of home loan interest from developer for delay in completion of project: SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that homebuyers seeking a refund for delayed projects cannot demand reimbursement from the developer for the interest paid on their home loans. The buyer is entitled only to a refund of the principal amount paid to the builder, along with compensation contractually agreed between the homebuyer and the developer.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B Varale observed that there cannot be multiple heads under which damages or interest are awarded beyond what is contractually agreed between the homebuyer and the developer. The Court, referring to earlier judgments, emphasized that unless there are exceptional reasons, a builder or authority such as Greater Mohali Development Authority (GMADA) cannot be directed to reimburse the interest paid by the homebuyer on a housing loan.
The case involves homebuyer Anupam Garg, who had booked a flat in 2011 under the 'Purab Premium Apartments' housing scheme launched by GMADA (Greater Mohali Area Development Authority) in Sector 88, Mohali. Garg secured an application for a 2-BHK + Servant Room (Type II) apartment by paying ₹5.5 lakh as earnest money—10% of the total consideration of ₹55 lakh.
The allotment was conducted through a draw of lots on March 19, 2012, in which Garg was successful. A Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued to him on May 21, 2012, outlining the flat's price, payment schedule, potential plans, ownership terms, and possession timelines. The LOI promised possession by May 2015 and specified a refund with 8% interest in case of delay.
Also Read: Supreme Court reaffirms that property shares become self-acquired after a joint family split, granting the right to sell
However, due to slow progress, the buyer sought a refund in 2016. When GMADA refused, he approached the Punjab State Consumer Commission. In 2018, the commission directed GMADA to refund the amount with 8% interest, ₹60,000 for mental harassment, ₹30,000 in litigation costs, and reimbursement of home loan interest paid by the buyer. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upheld this order in 2019.
Challenging the ruling, GMADA approached the Supreme Court, which partially overturned the earlier decisions.
'There cannot be multiple heads for awarding damages or interest beyond what is contractually agreed upon,' the bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B Varale, observed. Citing its earlier decision in Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, the court reiterated that in the absence of exceptional reasons, developers or authorities like GMADA are not liable to reimburse home loan interest paid by buyers.
'A perusal of the judgment and orders of the Commissions does not reveal any exceptional or strong reasons for the interest on the loan taken by the respondents to be paid by GMADA. That apart, whether the buyers of the flat do so by utilizing their savings, taking a loan for such purpose or securing the required finances by any other permissible means, is not a consideration that the developer of the project is required to keep in mind. For, so far as they are concerned, such a consideration is irrelevant,' the order noted.
'The one who is buying a flat is a consumer, and the one who is building it is a service provider. That is the only relationship between the parties. If there is a deficiency or delay in service, the consumer is entitled to be compensated for the same. Repayment of the entire principal amount along with 8% interest thereon, as stipulated in the contract, alongside the clarification that there shall be no other liability on the authority, sufficiently meets this requirement,' it noted.
The court partially allowed GMADA's appeal, striking down the component related to reimbursement of home loan interest while upholding the rest of the relief granted by the consumer commissions. As a result, GMADA will not be required to deposit any additional amount, and the funds already held by the State Commission will be disbursed to the buyers.
'The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the compensation payable to property buyers arises only on the principal sale consideration which had been paid by the buyer. Their observations were based on the case before them, and was therefore based on the time lost by the buyers,' said Yudhist Narain Singh, Senior Partner, YNS and Associates.
"However, the court has observed that in certain exceptional circumstances the interest on a loan paid to a financial institution may also be granted as compensation. Ordinarily, these cases may include those where it is held beyond an iota of doubt, that the property buyer was mislead into buying immovable property, and where the collusion or wrongdoing of a financial institution is clear," he added.
-

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hindu

8 hours ago

• The Hindu

High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of ₹256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.

Business Standard

9 hours ago

• Business Standard

HCs not custodian of revenue department, says SC; stays Bombay HC order

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.

Time of India

10 hours ago

• Time of India

‘High Courts not custodian of revenue': SC stays Bombay HC order blocking Rs 256 crore refund to firm

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department , the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. Live Events The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act , 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.