Supreme Court directs buyer to pay Rs.1.40 crore to developer and closes dispute after substituted flat allotment and possession

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale heard a miscellaneous application arising from Civil Appeal No. 3294 of 2018 concerning allotment, cancellation and substitution of a flat in a Mumbai project and the quantification of amounts payable after this Court earlier allowed substitution of an alternate apartment. The petition concerned enforcement of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order directing execution of an agreement for sale and related reliefs, and subsequent supervision of compliance and calculation of dues following multiple applications and deposit of the balance consideration.

The Court directed that the respondent shall pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,40,71,000 within eight weeks to the appellant (now amalgamated with Macrotech Developers Ltd.), and recorded that payment as discharging all outstanding dues of interest, taxes and other charges up to 5 February 2025 when possession was handed over. The Court reiterated that the parties must execute the agreement for sale/sale deed within two months of that payment and that expenses for stamp duty and registration would be borne by the respondent in accordance with law; it also discharged the prior restriction on structural changes. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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... (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... 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... (iv) The respondent undoubtedly could not enjoy the possession... 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... As such, there needs to be some adjustment of equities between the parties." The Court quantified admitted items and made a final award so as to bring the long-running dispute to an end.

Background The dispute arose after Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. allotted apartment No. 6403 to the respondent in 2013 and received an advance of Rs. 92,50,744 against a total consideration of Rs. 4,64,86,145. The developer issued notices for the balance payment and cancelled the allotment on 28.06.2013; the buyer challenged the cancellation before the NCDRC (CC No. 210 of 2013). The NCDRC forfeited the developer’s right to file a written statement for failure to comply with directions, stayed transfer of third‑party rights over the flat and on 17.02.2016 set aside the cancellation and directed execution and registration of the agreement for sale under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA), also awarding costs and compensation. The NCDRC recorded: "We hereby set aside the cancellation order of allotment dated 28.6.2013 ... and direct the opposite parties to execute and register the agreement for sale ... within 90 days ..." Despite the stay, the developer alienated the original flat on 24.11.2014, creating complications; its subsequent application to substitute an identical flat (6503) was rejected by the NCDRC as amounting to contempt, a view reversed by this Court on 20.03.2018 which allowed substitution and directed execution in accordance with MOFA.

After prolonged proceedings, mediation attempts, and various interim orders, this Court on 09.09.2024 directed the respondent to place a demand draft of the balance consideration; the respondent deposited Rs. 3,72,35,401 with the Registry which was thereafter released to the developer following further directions. Possession of the substitute flat (6503) was handed over on 05.02.2025 subject to the Court’s orders. The present application sought directions to enforce the March 2018 order or alternatively refund of the amounts paid. Having examined admitted liabilities and disputed claims and noting the developer’s failure to provide key documents and its wrongful alienation during the stay, the Court adjusted equities and fixed a final sum. The Court disposed of Misc. Application No. 2426 of 2018 accordingly, recording that post-handover charges would be payable by the respondent.

Case No.: MISC. APPLICATION NO. 2426 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3294 OF 2018 (2025 INSC 669) Case Title: Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Haresh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]