Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6439 OF 2021
Sudha & Ors. …Appellants
v.
Jaiprakash Associates Limited ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL MATRIX
This is a statutory appeal under Section 23 of the
1.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This appeal takes exception
th
to the final judgment and order dated 29 April 2021 of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi (for short, ‘the National Commission’). The appellants
are the complainants before the National Commission. By the
impugned judgment and order, the National Commission has
dismissed their complaint.
Signature Not Verified
2. It is necessary to set out relevant factual aspects which
Digitally signed by
BALA PARVATHI
Date: 2022.09.16
16:47:31 IST
Reason:
are necessary for the disposal of the appeal.
1
th
3. The third appellant is a member of the Bar. On 27
January 2013, the third appellant booked a twobedroom flat
in the project of the respondentCompany, called Garden
Isles. According to the case of the appellants, the
construction of the flat was inordinately delayed. When the
appellants visited the office of the respondentCompany in
January 2015, the officials of the respondentCompany
suggested to the appellants that the booking of the said flat
can be cancelled and the appellants can book an apartment
in Imperial Court – Tower1 in the project known as Jaypee
Greens, NOIDA. The officials of the respondentCompany
suggested to the appellants that the amount of consideration
paid by the third appellant while booking the earlier flat can
be adjusted towards the consideration of a flat in Jaypee
Greens. The appellants accepted the suggestion. Accordingly,
th
an allotment letter dated 11 July 2015 was issued by the
respondentCompany in the name of the appellants in respect
of Unit Reference No.IMP0128A4, having an approximate
covered area of 3072.48 sq. ft. (for short, ‘the said
apartment’). The agreed consideration was Rs.2,77,91,313/
(Rupees two crore seventyseven lakh ninetyone thousand
2
three hundred and thirteen). According to the case of the
appellants, the possession of the said apartment was agreed
to be handed over to them within a period of 24 months from
the date of the allotment letter.
4. The case of the appellants is that they were granted a
loan by ICICI Bank (for short, ‘the said Bank’). Apart from the
other documents, the said Bank executed Quadripartite
th
Agreement dated 9 December 2016. The appellants, the
respondentCompany, Jaypee Infratech Limited (as the
confirming party), and the said Bank were parties to the said
agreement. The agreement records that the loan amount shall
be disbursed by the said Bank directly to the respondent
Company, which will be adjusted towards the consideration
payable in respect of the said apartment. Accordingly, the
consideration earlier paid by the third appellant in respect of
the apartment booked in the Garden Isles project was
transferred towards the consideration payable in respect of
the said apartment to the respondentCompany. The
respondentCompany addressed a letter to the appellants on
th
24 October 2016 stating therein that the said apartment
3
was ready for prepossession formalities and for handing over
the possession to the appellants. In the said letter, the
respondentCompany mentioned that the completion
th
certificate dated 20 July 2016 has been issued by the
concerned authority. The letter recorded that though the area
of the apartment mentioned in the allotment letter was
3724.67 sq. ft of super area, in fact, the area of the said
apartment has been increased by 3.98 sq. ft of super area. By
the said letter, the appellants were called upon to deposit a
sum of Rs.1,82,26,309.30. The respondentCompany, by the
said letter, called upon the appellants to make the payment of
rd
the said amount on or before 23 November 2016 and
complete all the prepossession formalities, which would
enable the respondentCompany to carry out final finishing
work and to handover possession of the said apartment
within a period of 45 days from the date of making the
payment. AnnexureA to the said letter incorporated details of
the prepossession formalities required to be completed by
the appellants for the execution of the sublease deed in
respect of the said apartment. AnnexureB to the said letter
contained the description of four car parking slots reserved
4
for the appellants. AnnexureB also recorded that certain
work involving final finishing has not been done to avoid any
damage to the flat before the possession thereof was handed
over to the appellants. According to the case of the
appellants, though the said letter offered possession of the
said apartment to the appellants, in fact, a lot of work was
st
incomplete. According to the case of the appellants, on 31
December 2016, they paid a balance consideration of
approximately Rs.1.80 crores to the respondentCompany.
Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.89,20,000/ was paid by
the appellants by taking a loan from the said Bank. The
appellants have claimed that to expedite the process of
completion, they accepted the suggestion of the respondent
Company of taking a discount of Rs.4,72,900/ against giving
up facilities of airconditioners, wardrobes, modular kitchen
and jacuzzi agreed to be provided in the said apartment. The
appellants have relied upon correspondence made by them
with the respondentCompany from time to time for informing
that the condition of the said apartment was pathetic. The
appellants called upon the respondentCompany to specify
the date and time at which, the possession of the said
5
apartment will be handed over to them after rectifying all the
defects. The appellants have stated that though the said
apartment was not ready in July 2017, they obtained estamp
paper by depositing stamp duty of Rs.13,67,700/. According
to the case of the appellants, even thereafter, the work in the
said apartment was not completed, notwithstanding the
assurance given in writing by the respondentCompany to
keep the flat ready by the second week of August 2017. The
st
third appellant addressed a letter through email dated 21
September 2017 to the respondentCompany stating that a
consumer complaint has already been filed by them against
the respondentCompany before the National Commission. By
the said email, the appellants called upon the respondent
Company to refund the entire amount paid by them towards
consideration of the said apartment. During the pendency of
rd
the complaint filed by the appellants, by the letter dated 23
November 2017 addressed to the third appellant, the
respondentCompany informed that the said apartment was
ready for the delivery of possession and that the possession
will be handed over on the date and time as intimated by the
appellants.
6
5. It is necessary to make a brief reference to the complaint
filed by the appellants before the National Commission on
which, the impugned judgment has been passed. The basic
contention raised by the appellants was that the possession
th
was to be handed over to them within 24 months from 11
July 2015 and though the entire consideration was paid by
the appellants to the respondentCompany in December
2016, even by September 2017, the said apartment was not
at all ready for possession. As the entire payment was made
st
on 31 December 2016, within 45 days from the said date,
the possession of the said apartment ought to have been
handed over to the appellants. But, the work inside the
apartment was not completed even till September 2017. The
complaint was filed by the appellants alleging deficiency in
service rendered by the respondentCompany. The condition
th
of the said apartment as of 6 September 2017 was also set
out in the complaint which, according to the appellants,
showed that a lot of work was still not carried out. The first
prayer in the complaint was for refund of the entire
consideration amount paid by the appellants in respect of the
said apartment as well as the other miscellaneous charges
7
with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum on the
entire amount till the date of payment of refund. Another
prayer was made to refund the sum of Rs.15 lakhs paid by
the appellants by way of late payment charges to the
respondentCompany as well as the monthly installments
paid by the appellants to the said Bank. The appellants
prayed for grant of compensation on account of the mental
agony caused to them due to the failure of the respondent
Company in rendering service.
The respondentCompany contested the complaint. The
6.
respondentCompany pointed out that immediately after
th
obtaining the completion certificate, on 24 October 2016,
the appellants were called upon to complete prepossession
formalities and to pay the entire balance amount. The
contention raised by the respondentCompany was that the
entire consideration was not paid by the appellants within 45
th
days of the receipt of the letter dated 24 October 2016 and
the payment of the entire amount of the balance
consideration was made only in May 2017. One of the
contentions raised is that as per Clause 9 of the general
8
terms and conditions referred to in the allotment letter and
signed and executed by the appellants, the appellants could
claim a refund only if the possession was not handed over
within three months from the completion of the period of 24
months from the date of the allotment letter. It is contended
that even before the expiry of the said grace period of three
months, the complaint was filed claiming the refund.
7. The National Commission by the impugned judgment
and order held that refund could have been sought by the
appellants only if possession was not handed over on or
th
before 11 October 2017, but the appellants rushed to the
st
National Commission and filed the complaint on 21
September 2017. The National Commission referred to its
th
interim order dated 17 October 2017 by which the
appellants were called upon to file a report of a qualified
architect specifying defects/ deficiencies on account of which,
they were not willing to take possession of the said
apartment. The National Commission observed that
compliance with the said directions was not made by the
appellants. The National Commission observed that there was
9
no valid reason for the appellants not to accept the
possession of the said apartment and therefore, there was no
merit in the complaint filed by the appellants.
FAILED ATTEMPT TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE
We may note here that we had called upon the parties to
8.
explore a possibility of amicable settlement. The parties could
not arrive at an amicable settlement. However, during the
course of submissions, it was accepted that the appellants
had brought a purchaser who was willing to purchase the
said apartment at the cost of Rs.2.85 crores. The learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondentCompany stated
that considering the fact that the third appellant is a member
of the Bar, the respondentCompany is prepared to give up a
sum of approximately Rs.30 lakhs still payable by the
appellants and transfer the said apartment to the purchaser
brought by the appellants. In the alternative, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondentCompany stated
that by giving up the claim to receive the amount of
approximately Rs.30 lakhs payable by the appellants, the
10
respondentCompany is willing to put the appellants in
possession of the said apartment which is ready for
possession. However, this offer was not accepted by the
appellants who are still insisting on getting refund of the
amount paid by them with interest. Therefore, the parties
could not arrive at an amicable settlement.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
9. The third appellant who is an Advocate, has made
submissions on behalf of the appellants. He submitted that
as there was a gross delay on the part of the respondent
Company in completing the construction of the apartment
earlier booked by the third appellant, the appellants had no
choice but to accept the offer given by the respondent
Company in respect of the allotment of the said apartment.
Relying upon the correspondence made from time to time and
photographs placed on record, the third appellant submitted
that the entire balance consideration in respect of the said
st
apartment was paid by the appellants by 31 December
2016, and therefore, the respondentCompany was under an
obligation to complete the said apartment in all respects
11
st
within 45 days from 31 December 2016 and put the
appellants in possession thereof. He pointed out that though
the appellants repeatedly protested by addressing
communications to the respondentCompany that the
construction of the apartment was incomplete, no steps were
taken by the respondentCompany to complete the work.
Moreover, the appellants were forced to pay certain amounts
towards social club subscription and the maintenance
advance, though no facilities were in existence. He pointed
out that after granting enough opportunities to the
respondentCompany to complete the work in the apartment,
st
on 21 September 2017, the complaint was filed by the
appellants. The third appellant also pointed out that the
entire consideration amount paid by the appellants towards
the booking of the apartment in Garden Isles was not
transferred by the respondentCompany towards the
consideration of the said apartment.
10. The third appellant appearing in person pointed out that
the conduct of the respondentCompany is fraudulent as
without furnishing even a copy of the standard terms and
12
conditions of the allotment, signatures of the appellants were
taken on the last page of the terms and conditions. He
submitted that therefore, Clause 9.5(a) in the standard terms
and conditions will not be binding on the appellants. Hence,
the argument of the respondentCompany that the grace
period of three months was available to it after the expiry of
24 months from the date of the letter of allotment, is without
any foundation and ought not to have been accepted by the
National Commission. The third appellant also pointed out
the terms and conditions of the Quadripartite Agreement
th
dated 9 December 2016 to which the appellants, the said
Bank and the respondentCompany were parties. He pointed
out that as per Clause 17(d), the respondentCompany agreed
that in the event of termination of provisional allotment for
any reason, the said company was under an obligation to pay
the consideration received by it directly to the said Bank after
retaining an amount up to 10% of the total sale
consideration. He would, therefore, submit that once
termination is made by the appellants by demanding a refund
of the consideration, the respondentCompany is bound by its
obligation to immediately refund at least 90% of the
13
consideration amount received from the appellants. The third
appellant appearing in person, pointed out certain documents
placed on record to show that the first appellant is suffering
from liver disease and the first appellant’s husband, who is
also a member of the Bar, is suffering from chronic liver
disease and has been recently operated upon for removal of a
cancerous tumor from his liver. The third appellant pointed
out that the appellants are entitled to the refund of the entire
consideration and other charges paid in respect of the said
apartment as well as in respect of the apartment earlier
agreed to be allotted to the third appellant with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum till the date of realisation. The third
appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of
1
Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank .
The third appellant also relied upon another decision of this
Court in the case of United India Insurance Company
2
Limited v. Antique Art Exports Private Limited .
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
1 2007 (6) SCC 711
2 2019 (5) SCC 362
14
11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondentCompany firstly invited our attention to the
th
interim order of the National Commission dated 17 October
2017 by which, the appellants were directed to file a report of
a qualified architect specifying the defects/deficiencies on
account of which they were not willing to accept the
possession of the said apartment. He stated that till the
disposal of the complaint, the appellants never complied with
the interim order. The learned senior counsel pointed out that
the allotment letter refers to the standard terms and
conditions of the allotment. He submitted that the appellants
never disputed the terms and conditions referred to in the
th
letter of allotment dated 11 July 2016, which specifically
refers to the standard terms and conditions of allotment. He
pointed out that though a reference to the said general terms
and conditions appears in several documents, the appellants
never made any grievance that a copy of the same was not
provided to them. He submitted that there is no dispute that
the signatures of the appellants appear on the last page of the
said standard terms and conditions and that it is not the case
pleaded before the National Commission by the appellants
15
that their signatures on the last page were taken without
giving them copies of the original pages. He submitted that
Clause 9.5 (a) specifically provides that the allottee shall be
entitled to cancel the allotment only on default of the
respondentCompany to deliver possession of the said
apartment within 27 months from the date of the allotment
letter. He submitted that only after completion of 27 months
th
from 11 July 2016, the appellants could have claimed a
th
refund. He submitted that the said period expired on 10
October 2017. However, even before the expiry of the period
of 27 months, the appellants demanded a refund of the
consideration paid by them and filed the complaint with the
st
National Commission on 21 September 2017. The learned
rd
senior counsel also pointed out that by email dated 23
November 2017, possession of the said apartment was offered
to the appellants. He submitted that there is absolutely no
deficiency in service rendered by the respondentCompany.
He stated that it is only because of the fact that the husband
of the first appellant is ill and that he is a member of the Bar,
that the offer given by the respondentCompany which is
noted in paragraph 8 above, stands, though there is no
16
settlement. He would, therefore, submit that no fault can be
found with the impugned judgment.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
12. We have carefully considered the submissions and
perused the documents placed on record along with
additional documents. The question before us is whether
there was any deficiency in the service rendered by the
respondentCompany. The letter of allotment provides that
the possession of the said apartment shall be given to the
appellants within 24 months from the date of the allotment
th
letter. The allotment letter of 11 July 2015 specifically refers
to the standard terms and conditions. The relevant part of the
letter of allotment reads thus.:
“ The Standard Terms and Conditions
including the Undertaking(s) given by you
This allotment
forms part of this allotment.
letter cancels and supercedes all previous
written and oral understandings in respect of
the allotment of the said Unit done by this
letter.”
(emphasis added)
13. We may note here that the appellants have relied upon
the terms and conditions of the Quadripartite Agreement to
17
which the appellants and the respondentCompany are
parties. Clause 22 of the said agreement specifically refers to
the standard terms and conditions of the allotment. It is
pertinent to note that Clause 22 of the said agreement
provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the
Quadripartite Agreement, the appellants shall continue to be
liable for the payment of dues to the respondentCompany
under the standard terms and conditions of the allotment.
The appellants have made a prolonged correspondence with
the respondentCompany. In none of the letters/emails
addressed by the appellants, a grievance has been made that
a copy of the said standard terms and conditions was not
provided to the appellants. Moreover, it is not the case made
out either in the correspondence or in the complaint that the
signatures of the appellants were obtained on the last page of
the standard terms and conditions without providing a copy
thereof to them. Thus, it is not open for the appellants to urge
that the they are not bound by the standard terms and
conditions.
18
th
14. The letter of allotment dated 11 July 2015 records that
possession of the said apartment is expected to be offered to
the appellants within a period of 24 months. Clause 9.5 (a) of
the standard terms and conditions reads thus.:
“ 9.5(a) The Applicants/Allottee shall be
entitled to cancel the Allotment only on
default of the Company to deliver
possession of the Said Premises within
the stipulated period as mentioned
hereinabove and within the further period
of three months thereafter. Upon expiry of
stipulated period and upon the request of the
Applicant/Allottee, the Company shall
refund the amount (a) had been received
from the Applicant/Allottee along with
simple interest of the rate of 12% per annum
(subject to deduction of tax as applicable).”
(emphasis added)
Clause 7.1 of the standard terms and conditions provides that
the possession will be handed over within the period described
in the letter of allotment. The said period is of 24 months from
the date of the allotment letter. However, a grace period of
three months has been made available to the respondent
Company. If within this grace period of three months,
possession is not handed over, the appellants were entitled to
seek a refund. Thus, as per Clause 9.5(a), the appellants were
19
entitled to seek a refund of the consideration paid provided the
possession of the said apartment was not offered within the
said period of 27 months from the date of the letter of
allotment.
15. Thus, as per the terms of the letter of allotment, the
respondentCompany was under an obligation to complete the
construction of the apartment and offer possession thereof, on
th
or before 10 July 2017. In view of Clause 9.5(a) of the
standard terms and conditions, the appellants were entitled to
seek a refund only if the possession of the said apartment was
th
not handed over within 3 months from 11 July 2017. It is in
the context of the standard terms and conditions read with the
terms and conditions in the allotment letter that the
controversy will have to be resolved.
The appellants have not disputed that the competent
16.
authority had granted completion certificate to the tower in
th
question on 20 July 2016. A copy of the said document is
placed on record by the respondentCompany along with
application for filing additional documents. The letter dated
th
24 October 2016 addressed by the respondentCompany to
20
the appellants records that the said apartment was ready for
prepossession formalities and for handing over possession.
Therefore, the appellants were called upon to complete pre
possession formalities as listed in AnnexureA to the said
letter. One of the prepossession formalities incorporated in
AnnexureA was a submission by the appellants of a non
judicial estamp paper of the amount equivalent to 5% of the
value specified therein. The appellants were also required to
pay certain amounts towards the cost of electricity meter, gas
pipeline connection, and registration expenses. AnnexureB to
th
the letter dated 24 October 2016 incorporates the description
of four car parking slots allotted to the appellants. AnnexureB
also records that certain works specified therein, such as final
coat of painting/polish, fixing of C.P. fittings and chinaware
hardware fittings/ equipment, fixing of wooden flooring,
wardrobe, and modular kitchen has been withheld to avoid
damage before actual possession is handed over. By the said
th
letter dated 24 October 2016, the appellants were called
upon to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,82,26,309.30, the
breakup of which was set out in the said letter. The appellants
21
rd
were called upon to make the payment on or before 23
November 2016. The said letter records thus:
“We would request you to make the above
payment, within 30 days i.e. before
23.11.2016 (due date), and complete the
prepossession documentation to enable
us to complete the final finishing works, if
any, and to hand over the above apartment
to you within 45 days of the aforesaid
payment.”
Thus, the said letter was essentially addressed to the
17.
appellants calling upon them to complete prepossession
rd
formalities by 23 November 2016 which included payment of
the aforesaid amount. According to the case of the appellants,
st
they paid an amount of Rs.1.80 crores on 31 December 2016.
Apart from the fact that the appellants failed to pay the entire
th
amount specified in the letter dated 24 October 2016 on or
before 23 November 2016, the statement of accounts at
AnnexureA18 to the appeal shows that the last payment was
nd
made on 2 May 2017. Thus, the appellants themselves
committed default in payment of the balance amount payable
by them. Moreover, as stated in AnnexureA, one of the pre
possession formalities included the procurement of estamp
rd
duty of Rs.13,67,700/ on or before 23 November 2016. But,
22
Annexure A23, which is the email addressed by the third
appellant to the respondentCompany shows that the stamp
rd
duty was paid as late as on 3 July 2017. Though the
th
respondentCompany had time available till 10 October 2017
(including the grace period of 3 months) to complete the said
apartment in all respects and offer possession to the
th
appellants, by email dated 17 July 2017, the respondent
Company informed the appellants that the said apartment will
be ready by the second week of August 2017. In view of Clause
9.5(a) of the standard terms and conditions, the appellants
could have demanded the refund of the amount only if the
possession of the said apartment was not handed over to them
th
on or before 10 October 2017. However, without waiting till
th st
10 October 2017, by email communication dated 21
September 2017, the third appellant called upon the
respondentCompany to process the refund of the amount. In
fact, in the same letter, it was mentioned that the complaint
subject matter of this appeal was already filed on the same day
before the National Commission. The appellants were not
th
entitled to claim the refund till 10 October 2017. Hence, the
complaint was premature. As stated earlier, the appellants did
23
not complete the prepossession formalities set out in the
th
letter dated 24 October 2016 and its AnnexureA within the
time stipulated. Moreover, during the pendency of the
complaint before the National Commission, by email dated
rd
23 November 2017, the appellants were called upon to take
possession of the said apartment on any day between Monday
and Saturday, after intimating the time and date.
18. Reliance was placed on the obligation of the respondent
incorporated in Clause 17(d) of the Quadripartite Agreement to
refund 90% of the amount paid by the appellants to the said
Bank. However, Clause 22 of the same agreement provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in the said
Agreement, the appellants shall continue to be liable for
payment of their dues to the respondent under the standard
terms and conditions.
th
At this stage, we may note the interim order dated 17
19.
October 2017 passed by the Tribunal, which read thus:
“The learned counsel for the complainants states
on instructions that the possession of the flat
offered vide letter dated 24.12.2016 was not
accepted by the complainants for several reasons
including the defects in the flat offered to them.
24
The complainants are directed to file report from a
qualified architect, specifying the defects/
deficiencies on account of which they are not
willing to take possession of the flat offered to
them. In the meanwhile, the complaint is
admitted, subject to just exceptions. Issue notice
in terms of Section 13(1) of the Consumer
Protection Act alongwith a copy of the complaint
to the OP for 13.02.2018 alongwith notice of IA
No.16392 of 2017 directing it to give its version of
the case within a period of 30 days from the date
of receipt of the notice.”
The appellants have not shown compliance with the said
order. The failure of the appellants to do so is very relevant in
the context of their allegation that the work in the said flat was
not completed. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn
against the appellants. Hence, the appellants failed to
substantiate the grounds pleaded by them for not taking
possession.
At this stage, we may consider here whether there was
20.
any defect/deficiency in the service rendered by the
respondentCompany. Words ‘defect’ and ‘deficiency’ have
been defined under Clauses (f) and (g) of Section 2 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which read thus.:
“2.(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection
or shortcoming in the quality, quantity,
25
potency, purity or standard which is
required to be maintained by or under any
law for the time being in force or 2[under
any contract, express or implied or] as is
claimed by the trader in any manner
whatsoever in relation to any goods;
"deficiency" means any fault,
(g)
imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy
in the quality, nature and manner of
performance which is required to be
maintained by or under any law for the
time being in force or has been undertaken
to be performed by a person in pursuance
of a contract or otherwise in relation to any
service;”
21. In this case, we are concerned with the alleged deficiency
in service rendered by the respondentCompany. Till the date
on which the complaint was filed by the appellants, we do not
find that there was any fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in
the quality, nature and manner of the performance on the
terms and conditions on which allotment of the said
apartment was offered to the appellants. Therefore, the
appellants were not entitled to claim the refund of the
consideration paid by them in respect of the said apartment.
Hence, it is not possible to find fault with the reasons recorded
by the National Commission in the impugned judgment and
26
order. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the
same is dismissed.
However, in view of the solemn statement made by the
22.
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
Company, we grant time of two months to the appellants to
bring a prospective buyer interested in acquiring the said
apartment along with the right to use four reserved car
th
parking slots as mentioned in the letter dated 24 October
2016. Within the said period of two months, the appellants
shall submit to the respondent – Company, the letter of offer
signed by the prospective buyer. If such a buyer is brought by
the appellants within a period of two months from today, the
respondentCompany shall transfer the said apartment to the
appellants by completing all formalities within a period of one
month from the date of the offer letter. In such an event, the
entire amount liable to be paid by the appellants to the said
Bank shall be paid over by the respondentCompany
immediately on receipt of the consideration amount from the
purchaser. The balance amount, if any, shall be paid over by
the respondentCompany to the appellants. If the appellants
27
are not able to procure a buyer for the said apartment within a
period of two months from today, it will be open for the
appellants to take possession of the said apartment together
with the right to use four car parking slots as mentioned in the
th
letter dated 24 October 2016 within a period of three months
from today by giving advance intimation of at least seven days
to the respondentCompany. Needless to add that as the entire
consideration in respect of the said apartment has been paid
by the appellants, the respondentCompany shall not be
entitled to demand any amount from the appellants as a
condition for handing over the possession or for transferring
the same to the purchaser brought by the appellants, as the
case may be. On failure of the appellants to take possession of
the aforesaid apartment within 3 months from today, the
appellants will have no claim over the said apartment. In such
case, it will be open to the respondentCompany to alienate
the said apartment.
……..…………………J.
(SURYA KANT)
……..…………………J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
New Delhi;
September 16, 2022.
28