In Brief
GMADA, a real estate developer, appealed against orders directing it to refund deposits for undelivered flats plus 8% interest and additional compensation including interest on buyers' loans. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the 8% interest and mental agony compensation but removing liability for loan interest. The Court held that the 8% contractual interest itself constitutes full compensation for investment deprivation and delay in possession, and that buyers' financing choices are irrelevant to the developer's obligations. Multiple compensation heads for the same default cannot coexist.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.