In Brief
A builder failed to obtain an occupancy certificate and hand over a residential apartment within the contracted timeframe (39 months plus 180-day grace period). By the time possession was offered, nearly two to three years had passed beyond the deadline. The flat purchaser, who had taken a loan to finance the purchase, sought refund instead of accepting delayed possession. The Supreme Court held that the builder's delay constituted deficiency in service. The purchaser could not be forced to accept belated possession and was entitled to full refund with statutory interest. The Court struck down the builder's one-sided contractual clauses—which imposed unequal remedies and restricted the purchaser's termination rights—as unfair trade practices that violate consumer protection law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.