Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 669
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2426 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3294 OF 2018
JAWALA REAL ESTATE
PVT LTD & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HARESH ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The appellant– Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., subsequently
amalgamated with Macrotech Developers Ltd., had
allotted a three-bed room apartment to the respondent-
Haresh sometime in the year 2013. The apartment
number allotted to the respondent was flat no. 6403, B
Wing, building known as Lodha Allura (Alpha Tower) in
their project known as “Lodha Codename Blue Moon”
situated at Plot CS No. 464, Pandurang Budhkar Marg,
Opp. Hard Rock Café, Worli, Mumbai-400025. The
respondent, in 2013 itself, paid Rs. 92,50,744/- being the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.13
17:13:35 IST
Reason:
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 1 of 11
advance amount out of the total sale consideration of Rs.
4,64,86,145/-, and had been requesting the appellant to
provide relevant documents so that the registered
agreement could be executed. The appellant, on the other
hand, was giving written notices that the balance amount
be paid failing which the allotment would be cancelled.
2. The appellant cancelled the allotment vide letter dated
28.06.2013. This resulted into the respondent filing a
complaint before the National Consumer Disputes
1
Redressal Commission registered as CC No. 210 of 2013.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the
NCDRC, the appellant, despite having been granted time,
did not file his written submissions and, as such, their
right to file the written statement was forfeited on
19.11.2013. By the same order, the NCDRC also provided,
as an ad interim measure that the appellant would not
create any third-party rights with respect to the
apartment in question i.e. apartment No. 6403. Despite
the same, the appellant admits of having alienated the
said apartment on 24.11.2014. Additionally, vide
application dated 30.11.2015, the delay on part of the
appellant herein in filing written statement was condoned
conditionally on the payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
However, the appellant did not pay the said costs and
1
NCDRC
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 2 of 11
resultantly, the right to file the written statement stood
forfeited.
3. The NCDRC proceeded to allow the complaint, vide order
dated 17.02.2016. The operative part of the aforesaid
order is reproduced hereunder:
“11. Keeping in view all these facts and
circumstances, we hereby set aside the
cancellation order of allotment dated 28.6.2013 in
respect of the premises in dispute. We hereby
direct the opposite parties to execute and register
the agreement for sale and agreement in favour of
the complainant in respect of said residential flat
in conformity with the provisions of MOFA Act as
per clause 6 quoted above, within 90 days from
today and prepare the scheduled of payment as
per the provisions of MOFA Act prescribed under
Rule 5, Forum V of MOFA Rules 1964.
12. It is made clear that opposite parties will
charge interest @ 9% per annum from the due
date till its realisation. Needful be done within 90
days from today otherwise it will carry penalty of
Rs.125/- per day till needful is done. The
complainant is present in person. He has come
from Bombay and has suffered the agony and
harassment for the last 3 years. Consequently, we
award Rs.1 lakh against the opposite parties. The
said amount be paid to the complainant within 90
days otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per
annum till its realisation.”
4. As the appellant had already alienated the apartment in
question despite the stay granted by the NCDRC, during
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 3 of 11
the execution proceedings, it applied for modification of
the order dated 17.02.2016 to the extent that an identical
flat/apartment just above the apartment in question,
which would be on the next higher floor being apartment
no. 6503, may be substituted in place of apartment no.
6403 in the order dated 17.02.2016. The NCDRC, vide
order dated 16.12.2016, rejected the said application for
modification. The NCDRC also made a sharp comment
on the conduct of the appellant that the order of stay was
passed in their presence and, as such, it was
incomprehensible as to how they could have alienated the
same by mistake as alleged. It observed that as a matter
of fact, the appellant was in contempt and, therefore, no
modification is required.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the instant
civil appeal before this Court.
6. This Court, by order dated 20.03.2018, was of the view
that the application for modification ought to have been
allowed by the NCDRC as no contempt petition had been
filed and, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside
the impugned order. This Court further directed that
whatever amount was payable for the original apartment,
the same would be payable for the alternate apartment
offered, and consequently, stipulated a period of two
weeks to execute the agreement between the parties
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 4 of 11
within two weeks as directed by the NCDRC in accordance
2
with the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 .
7. The said order of this Court has still not been
implemented in its letter and spirit. On behalf of the
appellant, it has been contended that the appellant sent
repeated letters of demand to the respondent to make the
balance payment and get the agreement executed and
registered, but the respondent did not pay any heed to
these letters. On the other hand, according to the
respondent, he had been repeatedly writing to the
appellant to provide necessary clearances, the relevant
maps and the carpet areas of both the apartments – the
original as well as the alternate one offered, but he failed
to receive any response from the appellant.
8. The appellant filed the instant Miscellaneous Application
for appropriate directions to the respondent to comply
with the order dated 20.03.2018 or, in the alternative, to
allow the appellant to refund the entire amount paid by
the respondent towards the booking of the original
apartment along with interest as agreed in the application
form. It is this application which has been heard on a
number of occasions since 2018. The matter was also
referred to mediation as well as Lok Adalat but it could
not come to a close. Ultimately, this Court, vide order
2
MOFA
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 5 of 11
dated 09.09.2024, after recording the respective
contentions raised by the parties regarding the amounts
due as per their respective cases, directed the respondent
to come ready with the demand draft of the balance sale
consideration. The Court also noted that the interest
component, taxes, other society charges and other dues
would be considered later on. Resultantly, in the order
dated 30.09.2024, it was recorded that the respondent
has placed a demand draft of Rs. 3,72,35,401/- being the
balance sale consideration which was directed to be
deposited with the Registry. The matter was adjourned to
08.11.2024 when the aforesaid amount was directed to be
placed in a Fixed Deposit Receipt with any Nationalised
Bank and the matter was adjourned to 26.11.2024. The
parties were directed to file the details of the outstanding
amount and the objections to the same.
9. The matter was taken up on 10.12.2024 and, after
hearing the parties, this Court reserved the orders,
granted time to file the written submissions and further
directed that the amount lying in deposit with the registry
to be handed over to the appellant. Additionally, it was
directed that the appellant would handover peaceful and
vacant possession of the apartment i.e. 6503 to the
respondent within a week. The respondent, in the
meantime, was restrained from making any structural
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 6 of 11
changes in the apartment, however, the interior work was
permitted to be carried out. On 20.12.2024, on the
request of the appellant, it was provided that the payment
be released in favour of Macrotech Developers Ltd. as the
appellant company had amalgamated with the said
company. It appears that the registry had released the
amount in favour of the appellant on 30.01.2025 and,
subsequently, the appellant issued a communication to
the respondent to take possession on 05.02.2025. The
said document has been placed on record on 27.02.2025.
A perusal of the possession letter clearly bears an
endorsement by the respondent that he has taken
possession, subject to order(s) of this Court.
10. The question which now remains for us to determine is
the amount due and payable by the respondent to the
appellant. We have carefully and thoroughly examined
the respective claims of the appellant and the respondent
in this regard as submitted by them in their written briefs.
The appellant has claimed a total amount of
Rs.4,96,52,565/-, the break-up of the said amount under
major heads is as follows:
(i). Interest @ 9% per annum on consideration value as
well as on other charges: Rs. 3,98,42,426/-
(ii). Other charges [including infrastructure charges,
legal charges, utility connection & distribution
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 7 of 11
expenses, club membership charges, charges for
formation and registration of society, Building
Common Area Maintenance (“CAM”) charges,
additional BCAM charges, Federation CAM charges,
Additional Federation CAM charges and property
tax]: Rs. 65,67,208/-
(iii). Taxes on consideration value: Rs. 23,17,990/-
(iv). Delayed payment admin charges of 2%: Rs.
9,24,941/-
11. On the other hand, the respondent has admitted liability
to pay the amount of Rs. 2,15,884/- towards the legal
charges, utility connection & distribution charges and
charges for formation of society. Further, the respondent
has also agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs.
15,37,126/- towards infrastructure charges and club
membership charges, if the Court so directs. With respect
to the remaining amounts, the respondent has denied its
liability placing strong reliance on Sections 4 and 6 of the
MOFA.
12. Having considered the submissions, the following facts
govern the quantification of amount which we are
crystallising in order to put a quietus to this matter:
(i). The appellant has not provided the relevant
documents asked by the respondent relating to the
building map, carpet area, relevant NOCs right
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 8 of 11
from the beginning. Neither in any of the
communications to the respondent nor in the
submissions before us, the appellant has ever
stated that it actually provided the documents
required by the respondent.
(ii). The appellant, being well aware of the stay order
dated 19.11.2013 passed by the NCDRC
restraining it from creating any third-party rights,
in gross violation of the same, proceeded to
alienate the original allotted apartment no. 6403
on 24.11.2014 during the pendency of the
proceedings before the NCDRC. This alienation
has created further complication in the
proceedings and has also caused considerable
delay in the matter preventing it from attaining
finality.
(iii). Even after the orders passed by this Court, the
appellant has not come forward with the specific
carpet area of the original allotted apartment and
the alternate offered apartment i.e. 6403 and
6503.
(iv). The respondent undoubtedly could not enjoy the
possession of the apartment but the fact also
remains that the balance consideration of Rs.
3,72,35,401/- remained with the respondent.
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 9 of 11
Simultaneously, we cannot lose sight of the fact
that during this period, the appellant has been
maintaining the said apartment and paying the
essential charges to respective bodies/
associations. As such, there needs to be some
adjustment of equities between the parties.
13. We feel that there is no point in dealing with each and
every issue raised by both the parties. However, in order
to do complete justice between the parties, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the
respondent shall pay the following amounts:
i) Admitted amount of Rs. 2,15,884/-
ii) Amount that the respondent is ready to pay on the
direction of the Court – Rs. 15,37,126/-
iii) Taxes on consideration value – Rs. 23,17,990/-
iv) Amount of Rs. 1 crore over and above the above-
mentioned amounts.
14. As such, the respondent is directed to pay the total
amount of Rs. 1,40,71,000/- (Rupees One crore forty
lakhs seventy-one thousand only) to the appellant within
8 weeks from the receipt of this order. The payment of
above amount is being provided in lieu of clearance of all
the outstanding dues of interest/taxes and other charges
etc. upon the respondent up to 05.02.2025, i.e. the date
on which possession has been handed over to the
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 10 of 11
respondent. We make it clear that whatever charges and
dues may accrue with respect to the use and occupation
of the apartment post the handover of possession, the
respondent would be liable to pay such amounts in
addition to the above-decided amount. The parties are
further directed to get the agreement to sale/sale deed
executed within two months after the aforesaid payment
is made. The expenses for the stamp duty, registration
etc. would be borne by the respondent in accordance with
law. The restriction imposed, vide order dated
10.12.2024, regarding structural changes stands
discharged.
15. The Miscellaneous Application No. 2426 of 2018 stands
disposed of accordingly.
.....................................J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
…………..........................J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 13, 2025
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 11 of 11
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2426 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3294 OF 2018
JAWALA REAL ESTATE
PVT LTD & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HARESH ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The appellant– Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., subsequently
amalgamated with Macrotech Developers Ltd., had
allotted a three-bed room apartment to the respondent-
Haresh sometime in the year 2013. The apartment
number allotted to the respondent was flat no. 6403, B
Wing, building known as Lodha Allura (Alpha Tower) in
their project known as “Lodha Codename Blue Moon”
situated at Plot CS No. 464, Pandurang Budhkar Marg,
Opp. Hard Rock Café, Worli, Mumbai-400025. The
respondent, in 2013 itself, paid Rs. 92,50,744/- being the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.13
17:13:35 IST
Reason:
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 1 of 11
advance amount out of the total sale consideration of Rs.
4,64,86,145/-, and had been requesting the appellant to
provide relevant documents so that the registered
agreement could be executed. The appellant, on the other
hand, was giving written notices that the balance amount
be paid failing which the allotment would be cancelled.
2. The appellant cancelled the allotment vide letter dated
28.06.2013. This resulted into the respondent filing a
complaint before the National Consumer Disputes
1
Redressal Commission registered as CC No. 210 of 2013.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the
NCDRC, the appellant, despite having been granted time,
did not file his written submissions and, as such, their
right to file the written statement was forfeited on
19.11.2013. By the same order, the NCDRC also provided,
as an ad interim measure that the appellant would not
create any third-party rights with respect to the
apartment in question i.e. apartment No. 6403. Despite
the same, the appellant admits of having alienated the
said apartment on 24.11.2014. Additionally, vide
application dated 30.11.2015, the delay on part of the
appellant herein in filing written statement was condoned
conditionally on the payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
However, the appellant did not pay the said costs and
1
NCDRC
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 2 of 11
resultantly, the right to file the written statement stood
forfeited.
3. The NCDRC proceeded to allow the complaint, vide order
dated 17.02.2016. The operative part of the aforesaid
order is reproduced hereunder:
“11. Keeping in view all these facts and
circumstances, we hereby set aside the
cancellation order of allotment dated 28.6.2013 in
respect of the premises in dispute. We hereby
direct the opposite parties to execute and register
the agreement for sale and agreement in favour of
the complainant in respect of said residential flat
in conformity with the provisions of MOFA Act as
per clause 6 quoted above, within 90 days from
today and prepare the scheduled of payment as
per the provisions of MOFA Act prescribed under
Rule 5, Forum V of MOFA Rules 1964.
12. It is made clear that opposite parties will
charge interest @ 9% per annum from the due
date till its realisation. Needful be done within 90
days from today otherwise it will carry penalty of
Rs.125/- per day till needful is done. The
complainant is present in person. He has come
from Bombay and has suffered the agony and
harassment for the last 3 years. Consequently, we
award Rs.1 lakh against the opposite parties. The
said amount be paid to the complainant within 90
days otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per
annum till its realisation.”
4. As the appellant had already alienated the apartment in
question despite the stay granted by the NCDRC, during
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 3 of 11
the execution proceedings, it applied for modification of
the order dated 17.02.2016 to the extent that an identical
flat/apartment just above the apartment in question,
which would be on the next higher floor being apartment
no. 6503, may be substituted in place of apartment no.
6403 in the order dated 17.02.2016. The NCDRC, vide
order dated 16.12.2016, rejected the said application for
modification. The NCDRC also made a sharp comment
on the conduct of the appellant that the order of stay was
passed in their presence and, as such, it was
incomprehensible as to how they could have alienated the
same by mistake as alleged. It observed that as a matter
of fact, the appellant was in contempt and, therefore, no
modification is required.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the instant
civil appeal before this Court.
6. This Court, by order dated 20.03.2018, was of the view
that the application for modification ought to have been
allowed by the NCDRC as no contempt petition had been
filed and, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside
the impugned order. This Court further directed that
whatever amount was payable for the original apartment,
the same would be payable for the alternate apartment
offered, and consequently, stipulated a period of two
weeks to execute the agreement between the parties
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 4 of 11
within two weeks as directed by the NCDRC in accordance
2
with the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 .
7. The said order of this Court has still not been
implemented in its letter and spirit. On behalf of the
appellant, it has been contended that the appellant sent
repeated letters of demand to the respondent to make the
balance payment and get the agreement executed and
registered, but the respondent did not pay any heed to
these letters. On the other hand, according to the
respondent, he had been repeatedly writing to the
appellant to provide necessary clearances, the relevant
maps and the carpet areas of both the apartments – the
original as well as the alternate one offered, but he failed
to receive any response from the appellant.
8. The appellant filed the instant Miscellaneous Application
for appropriate directions to the respondent to comply
with the order dated 20.03.2018 or, in the alternative, to
allow the appellant to refund the entire amount paid by
the respondent towards the booking of the original
apartment along with interest as agreed in the application
form. It is this application which has been heard on a
number of occasions since 2018. The matter was also
referred to mediation as well as Lok Adalat but it could
not come to a close. Ultimately, this Court, vide order
2
MOFA
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 5 of 11
dated 09.09.2024, after recording the respective
contentions raised by the parties regarding the amounts
due as per their respective cases, directed the respondent
to come ready with the demand draft of the balance sale
consideration. The Court also noted that the interest
component, taxes, other society charges and other dues
would be considered later on. Resultantly, in the order
dated 30.09.2024, it was recorded that the respondent
has placed a demand draft of Rs. 3,72,35,401/- being the
balance sale consideration which was directed to be
deposited with the Registry. The matter was adjourned to
08.11.2024 when the aforesaid amount was directed to be
placed in a Fixed Deposit Receipt with any Nationalised
Bank and the matter was adjourned to 26.11.2024. The
parties were directed to file the details of the outstanding
amount and the objections to the same.
9. The matter was taken up on 10.12.2024 and, after
hearing the parties, this Court reserved the orders,
granted time to file the written submissions and further
directed that the amount lying in deposit with the registry
to be handed over to the appellant. Additionally, it was
directed that the appellant would handover peaceful and
vacant possession of the apartment i.e. 6503 to the
respondent within a week. The respondent, in the
meantime, was restrained from making any structural
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 6 of 11
changes in the apartment, however, the interior work was
permitted to be carried out. On 20.12.2024, on the
request of the appellant, it was provided that the payment
be released in favour of Macrotech Developers Ltd. as the
appellant company had amalgamated with the said
company. It appears that the registry had released the
amount in favour of the appellant on 30.01.2025 and,
subsequently, the appellant issued a communication to
the respondent to take possession on 05.02.2025. The
said document has been placed on record on 27.02.2025.
A perusal of the possession letter clearly bears an
endorsement by the respondent that he has taken
possession, subject to order(s) of this Court.
10. The question which now remains for us to determine is
the amount due and payable by the respondent to the
appellant. We have carefully and thoroughly examined
the respective claims of the appellant and the respondent
in this regard as submitted by them in their written briefs.
The appellant has claimed a total amount of
Rs.4,96,52,565/-, the break-up of the said amount under
major heads is as follows:
(i). Interest @ 9% per annum on consideration value as
well as on other charges: Rs. 3,98,42,426/-
(ii). Other charges [including infrastructure charges,
legal charges, utility connection & distribution
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 7 of 11
expenses, club membership charges, charges for
formation and registration of society, Building
Common Area Maintenance (“CAM”) charges,
additional BCAM charges, Federation CAM charges,
Additional Federation CAM charges and property
tax]: Rs. 65,67,208/-
(iii). Taxes on consideration value: Rs. 23,17,990/-
(iv). Delayed payment admin charges of 2%: Rs.
9,24,941/-
11. On the other hand, the respondent has admitted liability
to pay the amount of Rs. 2,15,884/- towards the legal
charges, utility connection & distribution charges and
charges for formation of society. Further, the respondent
has also agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs.
15,37,126/- towards infrastructure charges and club
membership charges, if the Court so directs. With respect
to the remaining amounts, the respondent has denied its
liability placing strong reliance on Sections 4 and 6 of the
MOFA.
12. Having considered the submissions, the following facts
govern the quantification of amount which we are
crystallising in order to put a quietus to this matter:
(i). The appellant has not provided the relevant
documents asked by the respondent relating to the
building map, carpet area, relevant NOCs right
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 8 of 11
from the beginning. Neither in any of the
communications to the respondent nor in the
submissions before us, the appellant has ever
stated that it actually provided the documents
required by the respondent.
(ii). The appellant, being well aware of the stay order
dated 19.11.2013 passed by the NCDRC
restraining it from creating any third-party rights,
in gross violation of the same, proceeded to
alienate the original allotted apartment no. 6403
on 24.11.2014 during the pendency of the
proceedings before the NCDRC. This alienation
has created further complication in the
proceedings and has also caused considerable
delay in the matter preventing it from attaining
finality.
(iii). Even after the orders passed by this Court, the
appellant has not come forward with the specific
carpet area of the original allotted apartment and
the alternate offered apartment i.e. 6403 and
6503.
(iv). The respondent undoubtedly could not enjoy the
possession of the apartment but the fact also
remains that the balance consideration of Rs.
3,72,35,401/- remained with the respondent.
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 9 of 11
Simultaneously, we cannot lose sight of the fact
that during this period, the appellant has been
maintaining the said apartment and paying the
essential charges to respective bodies/
associations. As such, there needs to be some
adjustment of equities between the parties.
13. We feel that there is no point in dealing with each and
every issue raised by both the parties. However, in order
to do complete justice between the parties, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the
respondent shall pay the following amounts:
i) Admitted amount of Rs. 2,15,884/-
ii) Amount that the respondent is ready to pay on the
direction of the Court – Rs. 15,37,126/-
iii) Taxes on consideration value – Rs. 23,17,990/-
iv) Amount of Rs. 1 crore over and above the above-
mentioned amounts.
14. As such, the respondent is directed to pay the total
amount of Rs. 1,40,71,000/- (Rupees One crore forty
lakhs seventy-one thousand only) to the appellant within
8 weeks from the receipt of this order. The payment of
above amount is being provided in lieu of clearance of all
the outstanding dues of interest/taxes and other charges
etc. upon the respondent up to 05.02.2025, i.e. the date
on which possession has been handed over to the
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 10 of 11
respondent. We make it clear that whatever charges and
dues may accrue with respect to the use and occupation
of the apartment post the handover of possession, the
respondent would be liable to pay such amounts in
addition to the above-decided amount. The parties are
further directed to get the agreement to sale/sale deed
executed within two months after the aforesaid payment
is made. The expenses for the stamp duty, registration
etc. would be borne by the respondent in accordance with
law. The restriction imposed, vide order dated
10.12.2024, regarding structural changes stands
discharged.
15. The Miscellaneous Application No. 2426 of 2018 stands
disposed of accordingly.
.....................................J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
…………..........................J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 13, 2025
MA.NO.2426 of 2018 IN C.A.NO.3294 of 2018 Page 11 of 11