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

Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, 2022 Scc Online J&K 565

The court observed that, a complaint under section 138 of NI Act, when an FIR of offences under section 420, 560 IPC was already filed with respect to circumstances of identical nature/ same transaction does not amount to forum shopping or double jeopardy. The offence under section 420 IPC is made during the issuance of... Read more » Read more »

Police must undertake a preliminary enquiry under section 173 (3) in cases where complaint doesn’t constitute a cognizable offencepunishable with more than 3 years.

In the case of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat 2025 INSC 410, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR against the appellant, a Rajya Sabha MP, for reciting and posting a poem at a public event. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, claiming... Read more » Read more »

Identification of the father will not precede the privacy rights of Children.

In APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIA v. AJINKYA ARUN FIRODIA (2023 INSC 146), the Supreme Court ruled that a DNA test of a child cannot be ordered merely to establish adultery in matrimonial disputes. The case arose from a husband’s application for a DNA test to question the paternity of his wife’s second child during ongoing divorce... 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.