Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 172
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10527 - 10528 OF 2024
SRIGANESH CHANDRASEKARAN
& OTHERS ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M/S UNISHIRE HOMES LLP
& OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. These appeals, filed under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 arise out of the impugned judgment and final orders
dated 30.07.2024 and 19.10.2023 passed by National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (Commission) in the Review
Petition and consumer case respectively.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals, briefly stated, are that
landowners entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA)
with the developer on 24.02.2012 and executed General Power of
Attorney (GPA) in favor of the developer. On 21.02.2013, the
developer obtained the sanctioned plan and a construction
Signature Not Verified
licence. Thereafter, from 29.07.2013, onwards the developer
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.02.20
16:51:08 IST
Reason:
executed the Memoranda of Sale Agreements with the flat buyers.
1
Under the Sale Agreements, the developer agreed to handover the
possession of flats within 36 months.
3. The initial 36 months period for handing over the possession of
the flats expired on 24.08.2016. The grace period of six months
also expired on 24.02.2017. However, the project remained
incomplete. On 05.06.2017, the appellants issued a notice
seeking redressal for delay in handing over the possession of the
flats.
4. The appellants filed a Complaint before the Commission on
18.08.2017 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade
practices. By judgment and final order dated 19.10.2023, the
Commission found deficiency in service due to delay of more than
six years in handing over the possession of the flats. The
developer was directed to complete the construction of the flats
allotted to the appellants, obtain occupancy certificate, if not
already obtained and handover the possession of the flats within
three months from the date of the order. The developer was
further directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount
deposited by the appellants from the due date of possession as
per their respective agreements till the date of offer of possession,
within six weeks, failing which delay interest would carry interest
2
@ 9% per annum. The landowners were not held liable for delay,
as the obligation to complete the construction rested solely with
the developer.
5. The appellants filed a review petition seeking to hold the
landowners jointly and severally liable and to enhance the
compensation awarded, to Rs.5/- per square feet per month, as
provided in the agreement, along with interest @ 6% per annum.
By an order dated 15.12.2023 passed in Chamber, the
Commission partly allowed the Review Petition and held the
landowners jointly and severally liable for completion of
construction and for payment of delay compensation. However,
the relief to award delay compensation @ Rs.5/- per square feet
along with 6% interest, on the deposits made by the appellants
was declined. The Review Petition was accordingly disposed of.
6. The landowners challenged the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2023
before this Court in SLP (C) No.9470/2024. By an order dated
03.05.2024, this Court held that the order dated 15.12.2023 in
the Review Petition was passed without affording any opportunity
of hearing to the landowners. Accordingly, the order dated
15.12.2023 was set aside and the Commission was directed to
3
dispose of the Review Petition after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the contesting parties, within a period of six weeks.
7. By an order dated 30.07.2024, the Commission inter alia held
that in view of JDA and Sale Agreement, the landowners cannot
be held jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.
However, the landowners and the developer were directed to
transfer the title of the property in question and proceed with the
execution of the sale deed in favour of the appellants. The Review
Petition was thus partly allowed.
8. The challenge in these appeals is confined to the extent, the
impugned orders hold the landowners not jointly and severally
not liable along with the developer for payment of compensation
for deficiency in service.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
landowners had executed GPA in favour of the developer thereby
creating a principal and agent relationship, and the principal is
liable for deficient acts of the agent. Our attention was invited to
various clauses of the Sale Agreement and it is contented that the
landowners and the developer are jointly and severally
responsible for deficiency in service. In support of the aforesaid
4
submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this
1
Court .
10. Learned counsel for the landowners, on the other hand,
submitted that under the JDA, the liability towards construction
and delivery of the flats vested entirely with the developer and the
landowners are fully indemnified by the developer against any
liability. Our attention has been invited to Clause 7 of the JDA
and Clauses 2 and 3 of GPA. It is contended that no relationship
of principal and agent exists between the landowners and the
developer and that the landowners are not signatories to the Sale
Agreements. It is urged that the delay in delivery of possession of
the flats to the appellants is not caused on account of any acts or
omissions of the landowners. It is contended that the direction in
para 11 of the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2024 to transfer
the title to the appellants and to execute the Sale Deeds is illegal
and unimplementable. It is, therefore, urged that the aforesaid
direction is set aside and the appeals be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for the developer, has supported the orders
passed by the Commission.
1
Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 601; Bangalore Development Authority v.
Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711; Santhosh Narasimha Murthy & Ors. v. M/s Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd.
& Anr., (Civil Appeal No. 8418 of 2022); Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3642 of 2018)
and Civil Appeal Diary No.37702 of 2024 and SLP (C) with Diary No. 33331 of 2024 vide its order dated
20.09.2024.
5
12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
records. Clause 7 of the JDA executed between the landowners
and the developer provides for mutual indemnities between the
parties. Clauses 7.1 and 7.4 which are relevant for the purposes
of controversy involved are extracted below : -
“ 7. INDEMNITY
7.1 The FIRST PARTY/OWNERS hereby confirm that
their title to the Schedule Property is good marketable
and subsisting and that none else have any right, title
interest or share in the Schedule Property and that
the Schedule Property is not subject to any
encumbrances, attachment or taxation or acquisition
proceedings or charges of any kind. The FIRST
PARTY/OWNERS shall keep the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER fully indemnified and harmless,
against any loss or liability, cost or claim, action or
proceedings that may arise against the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER on account of any defect in or
want of title on the part of the FIRST PARTY/OWNERS
or on account of any delay caused at the instance of
the FIRST PARTY/OWNERS.
XXX XXX XXX
7.4 The SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER shall be
entitled to enter into Sub Sale Agreements with the
prospective PURCHASERS in respect of the
SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER constructed area in
the Schedule Property along with proportionate
undivided share in the land and in the event of any
breach of the terms between the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER and the prospective
PURCHASE/NOMINEE of the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER, the FIRST PARTY/OWNERS
shall not be liable for any consequences thereof
suffered by the SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER shall
6
always indemnify and keep indemnified the FIRST
PARTY/OWNERS.”
13. Clauses 2 and 3 of the GPA executed by landowners in favour of
the developer authorize the developer to enter into Sale
Agreements, execute conveyances, receive consideration and
complete registration formalities in respect of developer’s share.
Clauses 2 and 3 are extracted below: -
“ 2. To enter into Agreement of Sale of 64% of
undivided share of land in the Schedule Property to
which the DEVELOPER is entitled to convey under
the Joint Development Agreement and the
constructed super built up area of 64% and
proportionate car parking slots and to enter into any
Agreement/s on such terms as our Attorney may
deem fit with the prospective Purchaser/s and to
obtain the registration of the Sale Agreement, Sale
Deed/s, Rectification Deed, Supplemental Deeds,
Confirmation Deed, Consent Deed, Cancellation
Deed, Correction Deed or any other Assurance in
relation to the share of the Developer in the
Schedule Property and to present the said
document/s for registration before the jurisdictional
Sub Registrar or Registrar and to obtain the
registration of the same, to sign all applications,
declarations, affidavit, and forms as contemplated
under the Karnataka Stamp Act and Rules and The
Indian Registration Act and Generally to do all such
lawful in relation to the registration of any Deed/s.
3. To receive the consideration for
sale/transfer/conveyance, as also advances, earnest
money deposits, pan payment and balance payment
in regard to tire sale/conveyance/transfer of 64% of
undivided share of the DEVELOPER in the Schedule
Property therein and issue receipts and
acknowledgements, if required.”
7
14. On a conjoint reading of the JDA and the GPA, it is evident that,
in respect of the flats falling in developer’s share, the developer
has the right to enter into sale agreements, undertake
construction, receive consideration, transfer possession and
convey title. The construction has to be carried out by the
developer. The delay in delivery of possession is in respect of flats
falling to the share of the developer.
15. It is not the case of the appellants that there was a delay in
construction on account of any act or omission on the part of the
landowners. The liability to pay the delay compensation is sought
to be fastened only on the ground that there is a relationship of
principal and agent. The landowners are undoubtedly jointly
responsible with the developer to ensure transfer of title to the
appellants. The Commission, therefore, has rightly directed both
the landowners and the developer to transfer the title and
execute sale deeds in favour of the appellants. The Clauses relied
upon by the appellants mainly, Clauses V, VII, 12(b) and 12(c) do
not indicate that landowners are under any obligation to raise
construction. For the lapse on the part of the developer, the
landowners, who are in no way concerned with the construction,
cannot be held liable for deficiency in service, particularly when
8
the developer has indemnified them against acts of commission
or omission in construction. The Commission has partly allowed
the Review Petition and has rightly fastened the liability for delay
compensation on the developer as it was responsible for the delay
in construction. The appellants’ interest has been fully protected
as landowners as well as the developer have been directed to
transfer title.
16. The reliance placed on orders passed by this Court on behalf of
the appellants is misplaced and does not advance the case of the
appellants. In Akshay & ANR. (supra), the State Commission and
the NCDRC had held that the developer alone liable for payment
of delay compensation and the aforesaid orders were upheld by
this Court. The said decision, in fact, supports the landowners.
In the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Civil Appeal @ Diary
No.37702/2024 with SLP (C) @ Diary No.33331/2024, the issue
with regard to joint and several liability of landowners and the
developer has not been adjudicated. Similarly, order dated
25.07.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.8418 of 2022 directs the
developer alone to pay the delay compensation. In any case, the
issue with regard to joint and several liability of the landowners
and the developer has to be decided in the facts of each case.
9
Therefore, the aforesaid decisions are of no assistance to the
appellants.
17. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in
these appeals. The same fail and are hereby dismissed.
…..…….……………….………….……….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
.……………………………….….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 20, 2026.
10
2026 INSC 172
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10527 - 10528 OF 2024
SRIGANESH CHANDRASEKARAN
& OTHERS ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M/S UNISHIRE HOMES LLP
& OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. These appeals, filed under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 arise out of the impugned judgment and final orders
dated 30.07.2024 and 19.10.2023 passed by National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (Commission) in the Review
Petition and consumer case respectively.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals, briefly stated, are that
landowners entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA)
with the developer on 24.02.2012 and executed General Power of
Attorney (GPA) in favor of the developer. On 21.02.2013, the
developer obtained the sanctioned plan and a construction
Signature Not Verified
licence. Thereafter, from 29.07.2013, onwards the developer
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.02.20
16:51:08 IST
Reason:
executed the Memoranda of Sale Agreements with the flat buyers.
1
Under the Sale Agreements, the developer agreed to handover the
possession of flats within 36 months.
3. The initial 36 months period for handing over the possession of
the flats expired on 24.08.2016. The grace period of six months
also expired on 24.02.2017. However, the project remained
incomplete. On 05.06.2017, the appellants issued a notice
seeking redressal for delay in handing over the possession of the
flats.
4. The appellants filed a Complaint before the Commission on
18.08.2017 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade
practices. By judgment and final order dated 19.10.2023, the
Commission found deficiency in service due to delay of more than
six years in handing over the possession of the flats. The
developer was directed to complete the construction of the flats
allotted to the appellants, obtain occupancy certificate, if not
already obtained and handover the possession of the flats within
three months from the date of the order. The developer was
further directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount
deposited by the appellants from the due date of possession as
per their respective agreements till the date of offer of possession,
within six weeks, failing which delay interest would carry interest
2
@ 9% per annum. The landowners were not held liable for delay,
as the obligation to complete the construction rested solely with
the developer.
5. The appellants filed a review petition seeking to hold the
landowners jointly and severally liable and to enhance the
compensation awarded, to Rs.5/- per square feet per month, as
provided in the agreement, along with interest @ 6% per annum.
By an order dated 15.12.2023 passed in Chamber, the
Commission partly allowed the Review Petition and held the
landowners jointly and severally liable for completion of
construction and for payment of delay compensation. However,
the relief to award delay compensation @ Rs.5/- per square feet
along with 6% interest, on the deposits made by the appellants
was declined. The Review Petition was accordingly disposed of.
6. The landowners challenged the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2023
before this Court in SLP (C) No.9470/2024. By an order dated
03.05.2024, this Court held that the order dated 15.12.2023 in
the Review Petition was passed without affording any opportunity
of hearing to the landowners. Accordingly, the order dated
15.12.2023 was set aside and the Commission was directed to
3
dispose of the Review Petition after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the contesting parties, within a period of six weeks.
7. By an order dated 30.07.2024, the Commission inter alia held
that in view of JDA and Sale Agreement, the landowners cannot
be held jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.
However, the landowners and the developer were directed to
transfer the title of the property in question and proceed with the
execution of the sale deed in favour of the appellants. The Review
Petition was thus partly allowed.
8. The challenge in these appeals is confined to the extent, the
impugned orders hold the landowners not jointly and severally
not liable along with the developer for payment of compensation
for deficiency in service.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
landowners had executed GPA in favour of the developer thereby
creating a principal and agent relationship, and the principal is
liable for deficient acts of the agent. Our attention was invited to
various clauses of the Sale Agreement and it is contented that the
landowners and the developer are jointly and severally
responsible for deficiency in service. In support of the aforesaid
4
submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this
1
Court .
10. Learned counsel for the landowners, on the other hand,
submitted that under the JDA, the liability towards construction
and delivery of the flats vested entirely with the developer and the
landowners are fully indemnified by the developer against any
liability. Our attention has been invited to Clause 7 of the JDA
and Clauses 2 and 3 of GPA. It is contended that no relationship
of principal and agent exists between the landowners and the
developer and that the landowners are not signatories to the Sale
Agreements. It is urged that the delay in delivery of possession of
the flats to the appellants is not caused on account of any acts or
omissions of the landowners. It is contended that the direction in
para 11 of the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2024 to transfer
the title to the appellants and to execute the Sale Deeds is illegal
and unimplementable. It is, therefore, urged that the aforesaid
direction is set aside and the appeals be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for the developer, has supported the orders
passed by the Commission.
1
Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 601; Bangalore Development Authority v.
Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711; Santhosh Narasimha Murthy & Ors. v. M/s Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd.
& Anr., (Civil Appeal No. 8418 of 2022); Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3642 of 2018)
and Civil Appeal Diary No.37702 of 2024 and SLP (C) with Diary No. 33331 of 2024 vide its order dated
20.09.2024.
5
12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
records. Clause 7 of the JDA executed between the landowners
and the developer provides for mutual indemnities between the
parties. Clauses 7.1 and 7.4 which are relevant for the purposes
of controversy involved are extracted below : -
“ 7. INDEMNITY
7.1 The FIRST PARTY/OWNERS hereby confirm that
their title to the Schedule Property is good marketable
and subsisting and that none else have any right, title
interest or share in the Schedule Property and that
the Schedule Property is not subject to any
encumbrances, attachment or taxation or acquisition
proceedings or charges of any kind. The FIRST
PARTY/OWNERS shall keep the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER fully indemnified and harmless,
against any loss or liability, cost or claim, action or
proceedings that may arise against the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER on account of any defect in or
want of title on the part of the FIRST PARTY/OWNERS
or on account of any delay caused at the instance of
the FIRST PARTY/OWNERS.
XXX XXX XXX
7.4 The SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER shall be
entitled to enter into Sub Sale Agreements with the
prospective PURCHASERS in respect of the
SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER constructed area in
the Schedule Property along with proportionate
undivided share in the land and in the event of any
breach of the terms between the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER and the prospective
PURCHASE/NOMINEE of the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER, the FIRST PARTY/OWNERS
shall not be liable for any consequences thereof
suffered by the SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER shall
6
always indemnify and keep indemnified the FIRST
PARTY/OWNERS.”
13. Clauses 2 and 3 of the GPA executed by landowners in favour of
the developer authorize the developer to enter into Sale
Agreements, execute conveyances, receive consideration and
complete registration formalities in respect of developer’s share.
Clauses 2 and 3 are extracted below: -
“ 2. To enter into Agreement of Sale of 64% of
undivided share of land in the Schedule Property to
which the DEVELOPER is entitled to convey under
the Joint Development Agreement and the
constructed super built up area of 64% and
proportionate car parking slots and to enter into any
Agreement/s on such terms as our Attorney may
deem fit with the prospective Purchaser/s and to
obtain the registration of the Sale Agreement, Sale
Deed/s, Rectification Deed, Supplemental Deeds,
Confirmation Deed, Consent Deed, Cancellation
Deed, Correction Deed or any other Assurance in
relation to the share of the Developer in the
Schedule Property and to present the said
document/s for registration before the jurisdictional
Sub Registrar or Registrar and to obtain the
registration of the same, to sign all applications,
declarations, affidavit, and forms as contemplated
under the Karnataka Stamp Act and Rules and The
Indian Registration Act and Generally to do all such
lawful in relation to the registration of any Deed/s.
3. To receive the consideration for
sale/transfer/conveyance, as also advances, earnest
money deposits, pan payment and balance payment
in regard to tire sale/conveyance/transfer of 64% of
undivided share of the DEVELOPER in the Schedule
Property therein and issue receipts and
acknowledgements, if required.”
7
14. On a conjoint reading of the JDA and the GPA, it is evident that,
in respect of the flats falling in developer’s share, the developer
has the right to enter into sale agreements, undertake
construction, receive consideration, transfer possession and
convey title. The construction has to be carried out by the
developer. The delay in delivery of possession is in respect of flats
falling to the share of the developer.
15. It is not the case of the appellants that there was a delay in
construction on account of any act or omission on the part of the
landowners. The liability to pay the delay compensation is sought
to be fastened only on the ground that there is a relationship of
principal and agent. The landowners are undoubtedly jointly
responsible with the developer to ensure transfer of title to the
appellants. The Commission, therefore, has rightly directed both
the landowners and the developer to transfer the title and
execute sale deeds in favour of the appellants. The Clauses relied
upon by the appellants mainly, Clauses V, VII, 12(b) and 12(c) do
not indicate that landowners are under any obligation to raise
construction. For the lapse on the part of the developer, the
landowners, who are in no way concerned with the construction,
cannot be held liable for deficiency in service, particularly when
8
the developer has indemnified them against acts of commission
or omission in construction. The Commission has partly allowed
the Review Petition and has rightly fastened the liability for delay
compensation on the developer as it was responsible for the delay
in construction. The appellants’ interest has been fully protected
as landowners as well as the developer have been directed to
transfer title.
16. The reliance placed on orders passed by this Court on behalf of
the appellants is misplaced and does not advance the case of the
appellants. In Akshay & ANR. (supra), the State Commission and
the NCDRC had held that the developer alone liable for payment
of delay compensation and the aforesaid orders were upheld by
this Court. The said decision, in fact, supports the landowners.
In the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Civil Appeal @ Diary
No.37702/2024 with SLP (C) @ Diary No.33331/2024, the issue
with regard to joint and several liability of landowners and the
developer has not been adjudicated. Similarly, order dated
25.07.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.8418 of 2022 directs the
developer alone to pay the delay compensation. In any case, the
issue with regard to joint and several liability of the landowners
and the developer has to be decided in the facts of each case.
9
Therefore, the aforesaid decisions are of no assistance to the
appellants.
17. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in
these appeals. The same fail and are hereby dismissed.
…..…….……………….………….……….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
.……………………………….….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 20, 2026.
10