Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Law Firms

Supreme Court Stays NCDRC Order Directing Builder To Refund Excess Sale Area Charges

19 March 2023 4:11 AM GMT
Supreme court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Absence, Direct Evidence, Bribe Demand, Prove, Circumstantial Evidence, oral documentary, constitution bench,  Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, beyond reasonable doubt, Section 7 and clauses (i) and (ii) of Section13(1)(d), B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. State of Andhra, M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P, Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) |Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009,

The Supreme Court has stayed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s Order dated 16.01.2023 whereby the Commission had the Appellant Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. to refund the amount collected towards excess sale area to the Respondents as per the Apartment Buyer Agreement.


The Appellant had submitted that NCDRC failed to consider documents and submissions including Independent Architects’ reports, substantiating that there was an actual increase of sale area. The Appellant further submitted that the mechanical reliance placed by NCDRC on its Order dated 26.08.2020 in CC No. 285/2018 and CC No. 286/2018 titled 'Pawan Gupta Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd’ was erroneous and NCDRC failed to consider that the Order in Pawan Gupta (supra.) was passed in reference to the specific facts and circumstances therein and no expert reports or affidavits detailing the increase in sale area were placed on record therein.

Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi prima facie observed that the Commission had failed to deal with the contentions and material placed on record by the Appellant Real Estate Company.

Responding to the queries of the Bench, the Respondent Home Buyers appearing on caveat submitted that Pawan Gupta Judgement, pertaining to the same Real Estate Developer and for the same project, has travelled to the Supreme Court whereby it has been affirmed in the Civil Appellate as well as Review Jurisdiction. Hence, the issue with regard to charges for excess sale area has attained finality.

The Bench expressed that evidence, being the Expert Affidavits and Reports placed on record by the Real Estate Developer has not been dealt with by the NCDRC and the said material was not before the NCDRC in Pawan Gupta. Accordingly, the Court issued notice on the Civil Appeal and stayed the Impugned Order while permitting the Respondent to file a counter-affidavit within 2 weeks from the date of the Order.


Counsel For Appellant: Mr. Amit Sibal and Mr. Siddarth Bhatnagar, Senior Advocates along with Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Partner, Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Mr. Rohan Sharma Principal Associates, Mr. Anmol Pandey, Mr. Nicholas Choudhury, Mr. Gurtejpal Singh, Ms. Suditi Batra, Mr. Abhishek Rana and Ms. Aashna Arora, Advocates from Karanjawala & Co. appeared in the matter on behalf of Appellant.

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR

Next Story