Mohali flat buyers get relief from Supreme Court
In a key ruling that balances homebuyer rights and builder liability, the Supreme Court has upheld a refund with 8% compounded interest to two buyers who pulled out of a delayed Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) housing project, but turned down their plea to recover the home loan interest they had paid.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale delivered the ruling last week in a dispute stemming from GMADA's 'Purab Premium Apartments' project in Sector 88, Mohali. The buyers, Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar, had booked 2-BHK flats in 2012 and deposited ₹50.46 lakh and ₹41.29 lakh, respectively. They were promised possession by May 2015 under a Letter of Intent (LOI), which also assured a refund with 8% interest in case of delay.
Citing slow progress and major deviations from the promised layout and amenities, the buyers sought refunds in 2016. When GMADA resisted, they moved the Punjab State Consumer Commission, which in 2018 ordered GMADA to return their money with 8% interest, ₹60,000 each for mental harassment, ₹30,000 each in litigation costs, and the interest they had paid on their housing loans. This decision was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2019.
However, GMADA contested the direction to pay for buyers' loan interest in the Supreme Court.
In its verdict, the court reaffirmed that delayed possession entitles buyers to a refund with reasonable interest. 'Where the development authority… does not deliver possession… the allottee is entitled for refund… with reasonable interest,' the bench said, citing its earlier ruling in Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank.
The bench also quoted GDA v. Balbir Singh, saying compensation must vary with the facts of the case: 'In cases where monies are being simply returned… the compensation would necessarily have to be higher.'
However, the judges ruled out compensation under multiple heads. Citing DLF Homes Panchkula v. D.S. Dhanda, they said, 'There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages.' Justice Karol observed, 'The 8% interest awarded… is the compensation for being deprived of the investment… No amount of interest on the loan taken by the respondents could have been awarded.'
The court allowed GMADA's appeal in part—striking down the loan interest component but upholding the rest of the relief granted by the consumer commissions. GMADA will not have to deposit any additional sum, and the money already with the State Commission will be disbursed to the buyers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
California's AB5 Law under fire, nail techs sue state over worker classification – what the law states?
A federal lawsuit has been filed against California, challenging its labor rules concerning nail technicians, as per a report. The lawsuit, which was filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, claimed that Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), violates the 14th Amendment, as it does not allow nail technicians to work as independent contractors, as reported by MoneyWise. What is AB5 and Why It Was Introduced Assembly Bill 5, which was passed in 2019, changed how companies classify workers, as per the report. This came after a 2018 Supreme Court ruling against Dynamex Operations West, which had misclassified delivery drivers as independent contractors to cut costs, which led the assembly bill to form ground rules for who can be an independent contractor, according to the Moneywise report. Under the new law, workers must meet three conditions to be categorised as a contractor, which include working independently, performing tasks outside the company's core business and offering their services to other clients, as reported by MoneyWise. If a worker does not come under these conditions, they must be treated as employees, with protections like minimum wage, overtime pay, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance, according to the MoneyWise report. ALSO READ: Pokrovsk in peril? Tensions surge as 111,000 Russian troops gather near Ukraine's frontline hotspot Lives Turned Upside Down Pro Nails Association pointed out that the change had shaken up an industry, which has many immigrant employees from Vietnam, and generates about $3 billion a year, reported MoneyWise. Live Events California Assemblyman Tri Ta (R-Westminster), who is the representative of Little Saigon, said that, "Their lives have turned upside down overnight," and "It is not just unfair, it is discrimination," as quoted in the report. Vietnamese Nail Techs Say Their Livelihoods Are at Risk California's AB5 Law's change is not in favour of nail salon owners, and the owner of two Happy Nails & Spa franchises, An Tran, is taking the state to court, arguing the rules impede how salons operate day-to-day, as reported by MoneyWise. Tran explained that turning contractors into full-time employees would mean higher payroll costs, higher insurance and tighter margins for owners, who already deal with overhead costs like rent and supplies, according to the report. Tran told the LA Times, "We don't have customers all the time. That's going to cost us a lot more to pay them for the downtime when they don't have any customers," as quoted in the MoneyWise report. ALSO READ: Iran moves women prisoners to hellhole farm jail after airstrike hits notorious Evin prison A Fight About Community and Identity According to the lawsuit, the fight is also about community, as many Vietnamese refugees had started working in nail salons in the late 1970s with the aim to rebuild their lives in America and now, even decades later, that legacy has continued, reported MoneyWise. The lawsuit also pointed out that over 82% of California nail technicians are Vietnamese, and about 85% are women, according to the report. The attorney for the plaintiffs, Scott Wellman told KTLA 5, 'Vietnamese American manicurists have faced blatant discrimination under California's labor laws, stripped of the same rights and freedoms afforded to others in their industry,' adding, 'If the State of California refuses to fix this injustice, we are prepared to hold them accountable in federal court,' as quoted by MoneyWise. Low Pay and Health Risks Also Part of the Story While, worker advocates have highlighted that the lawsuit also points out the deeper issues of exploitation across the industry, as per the report. A UCLA Labor Center report showed that about 80% of nail salon workers earn pay at or below two-thirds of the median full-time wage, more than double the national low-wage rate for all workers and many salons are reportedly concerned about health and safety conditions as well, as per the report. FAQs Why are nail technicians suing the state of California? They say AB5 unfairly does not allow them to work as independent contractors, which threatens their livelihood and community-built businesses. How are nail salons affected by AB5? Salon owners now have to treat nail technicians as employees, which comes with higher costs and less flexibility, as per the report.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Fourth of July fireworks: Here's how Trump's tariffs can take the spark out of it this year
Fourth of July, referred to as Independence Day in the US, is celebrated by Americans in different ways, with one of the major highlights being the fireworks. This year, people might have to spend extra on them due to the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, NPR reported. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House after a Supreme Court ruling curbing judges' power in a case tied to birthright citizenship.(REUTERS) Julie Heckman, executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Association, anticipates that people will get a "little less bang" this time. A major reason behind this is that the US is completely dependent on China when it comes to fireworks. These include rockets, fountains, and other items that are used in large numbers by Americans to mark Independence Day. How are Trump's tariffs affecting Fourth of July fireworks? China, a major fireworks supplier across the globe, manufactures 99 per cent of the backyard consumer fireworks as well as 90 per cent of the professional display fireworks for the US market, said Heckman, adding that the country was the "sole source" for fireworks supplies for America. Earlier this year, fireworks were hit by double and triple-digit tariffs by the Trump administration, much like several other things that the country imports from China. During Trump's maiden term, fireworks remained outside the purview of the trade war. The problem is serious this time, forcing some of the fireworks importers to halt deliveries so that they can avoid import taxes on them. Heckman told NPR that there are chances that people might get to witness shortages in product supplies this time. He has even advised customers to be early birds to get the best variety. Few brands, such as the American Fireworks Company, stockpiled fireworks much before the Trump-imposed tariffs came into effect. However, they ended up with a volatile season. John Sorgi, whose great-grandfather started American Fireworks Company, said they have changed product prices four times. Fireworks concern stretches into 2026 Not just 2025, the fireworks industry remains concerned about 2026 as well, when the Fourth of July will be a Saturday, meaning they can expect a jump in sales. The occasion marks the 250th Independence Day of the US. In the US, fireworks from China are being taxed at 30 per cent. This could reach April 2025's level of 145 per cent if no trade agreement is reached. FAQs 1. What actually happened on the 4th of July 1776? On this day, the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence. 2. What is the Fourth of July supposed to represent? This day marks the declaration of America as an independent state after breaking away from British rule. 3. What is the July 4th celebration for? Independence Day, popularly known as the Fourth of July, is a federal holiday in the US.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 hours ago
- Business Standard
Bhushan Steel's former resolution professional files review petition in SC
The former resolution professional (RP) for debt-laden Bhushan Power and Steel (BPSL), Mahender Khandelwal, has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court (SC), which had earlier rejected the resolution plan of JSW Steel and ordered liquidation. Khandelwal filed the petition on Friday, arguing that the apex court had overlooked certain critical documents and procedural compliances and committed certain 'errors apparent' while recording the judgment. On the matter of verifying the eligibility of the successful resolution applicant (in this case JSW Steel) under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Khandelwal has claimed that a thorough and independent verification was conducted. A leading third-party consultancy firm was appointed to assess JSW Steel's eligibility, and the findings were shared with the committee of creditors (CoC) of BPSL, with no objections raised. On 2 May, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, pointing to 'an entire spectrum of lacunas and flaws' in the resolution plan of JSW Steel regarding non-compliance with mandatory requirements under the IBC. The verdict came four years after JSW Steel had acquired BPSL under the IBC. The apex court criticised both the RP and the CoC. It held that the RP had failed to discharge his statutory duties under the IBC and the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) regulations. The CoC, it said, had failed to exercise its commercial wisdom and approved a resolution plan that contravened mandatory IBC provisions. Lenders including the State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank have already filed review petitions before the Supreme Court. On 25 June, JSW Steel, too, filed a review petition. In his plea, Khandelwal contended that the joint shareholding of BPSL and JSW Steel in a joint venture entity had been disclosed in the resolution plan and formed part of the record before the Supreme Court. He also submitted that the required compliance certificate (Form H) was filed along with the application seeking approval of the resolution plan before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), and was part of the court record. Khandelwal further stated that an appropriate application had been made for the extension of the CIRP period beyond 180 days, and the relief was granted by the NCLT. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), he noted, had directed the exclusion of the time spent on litigation from the computation of the 270-day CIRP period. Therefore, the resolution plan approval application filed by the RP was submitted before the expiry of the 270-day CIRP period, Khandelwal said. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the review petition once it resumes after the summer recess on 14 July. JSW Steel is also expected to cite what it claims are factual errors in the original order in its review petition.
