Case Details: Sriganesh Chandrasekaran vs. Unishire Homes Llp [2026] 184 taxmann.com 2 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Alok Aradhe & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
-
Chandrachur Bhattacharyya, Ms Shreya Kasera, Advs. & Sahil Tagotra, AOR for the Appellant.
-
Kumar Sudeep & Dr Sushil Balwada, AORs for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the landowners and the developer entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), and the landowners executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the developer.
The developer obtained the sanctioned plan and construction licence, and executed Sale Agreements with flat buyers, agreeing to hand over possession within 36 months. The 36-month period expired on 24.08.2016, and the six-month grace period expired on 24.02.2017; the project remained incomplete.
The flat buyers filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service, by order dated 19.10.2023, the Commission found deficiency in service due to delay of more than six years, directed the developer to complete construction, obtain occupancy certificate if not already obtained, and hand over possession within three months, and to pay interest at 6% per annum on amounts deposited from due date of possession till date of offer of possession within six weeks, failing which delay interest would carry 9% per annum.
The landowners were not held liable for the delay as the obligation to complete construction rested with the developer. The Appellants filed a Review Petition seeking to hold the landowners jointly and severally liable and to enhance compensation.
By order dated 30.07.2024, the Commission held that, in view of the JDA and the Sale Agreement, the landowners could not be held jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service, but directed the landowners and the developer to transfer title and proceed with execution of sale deeds in favour of the appellants.
It was noted that for lapse on the part of the developer, the landowners, who were in no way concerned with construction, could not be held liable for deficiency in service, particularly when the developer had indemnified them against acts of the commission or omission in construction.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court observed that the Commission had partly allowed the Review Petition and had rightly fastened liability for delay compensation on the developer as it was responsible for the delay in construction.
Further, the Supreme Court observed that the appellants’ interest had been fully protected, as landowners, as well as the developer, had been directed to transfer title.
The Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the appeal, and the same was to be dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Order of National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RA-434-2023, dated 30-07-2024 (para 17) affirmed
- Akshay v. Aditya Civil Appeal No. 3642 of 2018, dated 29-8-2024 (para 16) distinguished
List of Cases Referred to
- R. Mohanraj v. Sriganesh Chandrasekaran [SLP (C) No. 9470 of 2024, dated 3-5-2024] (para 6)
- Akshay v. Aditya [Civil Appeal No. 3642 of 2018, dated 29-8-2024] (para 9)
- Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711 (para 9)
- Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy (1979) 2 SCC 601 (para 9)
- Santhosh Narasimha Murthy v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 8418 of 2022, dated 25-8-2023] (para 9).
The post Landowners Not Liable for Delay Under JDA | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
