Writ Jurisdiction in the Indian Constitution has been borrowed from the concept of prerogative writs under English Law and was vested in the Chartered High Courts prior to commencement of Constitution. The framers of the Constitution adopted the concept of writs and funnelled such powers to fruitfully enforce the fundamental rights... Read More
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.