Dharmendra Sharma Vs. Agra Development Authority, 2024 INSC 667

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Dharmendra Sharma Vs....

The Supreme Court addressed a dispute over the delayed possession of an apartment. The appellant sought a refund with interest due to the respondent’s failure to provide necessary completion and firefighting clearance certificates.

When the Respondent had pleaded the application to be barred by limitation on the ground that the date on which the possession of the property was granted was beyond 2 years as contemplated under Section24A. However, the Hon’ble Court had held that the ongoing interactions and part payments extended the limitation period, making the complaint timely. The court had considered the last date of payment of consideration to be the date on which the cause of action got ceased under Sections 18 and 19 of the Consumer protection Act.

Further, while deciding the validity of the possession that was in fact claimed to have gotten concluded from the perspective of the Builder, the Hon’ble supreme court had held a valid offer of possession requires completion and firefighting clearance certificates. Further, it was also held that in the absence of such certification, the offer to provide possession and consequential handing over possession would be rendered invalid.

The Court while holding the above principles, considering the relevant facts therein, had ordered a refund with 9% interest from the complaint date and additional compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs, emphasizing the importance of statutory compliance by developers.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Supreme Court Reiterates Narrow Scope Of Interference Under Section 37 Arbitration Act

In Somdatt Builders – NCC – NEC (JV) vs. National Highways Authority of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2058/2012), the Supreme Court upheld the arbitral tribunal’s award, emphasizing minimal judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It reiterated that courts do not act as appellate bodies and can only set aside an... Read more » Read more »

High Court Can’t Become Guardian of Limitation Without Pleadings : Limitation Must Be Pleaded, Not Presumed

In Jai Ram Vs. Som Prakash & Anr. etc., 2025 INSC 227, the Hon’ble Supreme Court chided the High Court for setting-aside a reasoned order of the District Court on the ground of limitation when the issue of limitation was never pleaded, raised or evidence for the same led before the District Court. The underlying... Read more » Read more »

Chittarmal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 2 SCC 266

The court discusses the distinction between section 34 and 149 of IPC. Common object does not necessarily require proof of a prior meeting of minds or pre-consort, whereas common intention suggests activity in concert and presupposes the existence of a prepared plan, implying a prior meeting of minds. However, both deal with vicarious liability of... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.