One-sided clauses in builder-buyer agreements unfair, says Supreme Court

One-sided clauses in builder-buyer agreements unfair, says Supreme Court

In the Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd v Govindan Raghavan case, the Supreme Court held that a contract that is one-sided and against the interests of buyers cannot be final and binding if it is shown that buyers had no option but to sign on the dotted line.

In this case, the buyer, Govindan Raghavan, had deposited ₹48.3 million (US$695,000) with the builder, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure, for a flat in Araya Complex, Gurugram. But the builder failed to obtain an occupancy certificate for the flat within the stipulated period of 39 months (with a grace period of 180 days) and, therefore, could not hand over the possession of the flat to the buyer within the time period agreed by them in the agreement.

The buyer had approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which directed the builder to pay compensation to the buyer and also awarded interest for a part of the period. Meanwhile, the builder obtained the occupancy certificate and issued a possession letter to the buyer. The buyer submitted that he was not interested in taking possession of the apartment because of the delay. The builder filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.

For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.