, ||One-sided buyers Agreement Unfair Trade
The Supreme Court has held that the incorporation of one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee observed that the Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement.
The Court held thus while disposing an appeal filed by a Developer against an order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing it to refund of the amounts deposited by the Apartment Buyers on account of the inordinate delay in completing the construction and obtaining the Occupation Certificate.
The following issues were raised in the appeal before the Apex Court: (i) Determination of the date from which the 42 months period for handing over possession is to be calculated under Clause 13.3, whether it would be from the date of issuance of the Fire NOC as contended by the Developer; or, from the date of sanction of the Building Plans, as contended by the Apartment Buyers; (ii) Whether the terms of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement were one-sided, and the Apartment Buyers would not be bound by the same; (iii) Whether the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 must be given primacy over the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; (iv) Whether on account of the inordinate delay in handing over possession, the Apartment Buyers were entitled to terminate the agreement, and claim refund of the amounts deposited with interest.
While discussing the second issue, the bench referred to clauses of the agreement and observed that the same reflect the wholly one-sided terms of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement, which are entirely loaded in favour of the Developer, and against the allottee at every step. The court said that the terms of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement are oppressive and wholly one-sided, and would constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CASE: IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. vs. ABHISHEK KHANNA [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5785 OF 2019 ]
CORAM: Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee
CITATION: LL 2021 SC 14
https://livelaw.in/top-stories/apartment-buyer-agreement-unfair-trade-practice-supreme-court-168274
About SocialNewsXYZ
An Indo-American News website. It covers Gossips, Politics, Movies, Technolgy, and Sports News and Photo Galleries and Live Coverage of Events via Youtube. The website is established in 2015 and is owned by AGK FIRE INC.
, ||One-sided buyers Agreement Unfair Trade The Supreme Court has held that the incorporation of one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee observed that the Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement. The Court held thus while disposing an appeal filed by a Developer against an order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing it to refund of the amounts deposited by the Apartment Buyers on account of the inordinate delay in completing the construction and obtaining the Occupation Certificate. The following issues were raised in the appeal before the Apex Court: (i) Determination of the date from which the 42 months period for handing over possession is to be calculated under Clause 13.3, whether it would be from the date of issuance of the Fire NOC as contended by the Developer; or, from the date of sanction of the Building Plans, as contended by the Apartment Buyers; (ii) Whether the terms of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement were one-sided, and the Apartment Buyers would not be bound by the same; (iii) Whether the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 must be given primacy over the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; (iv) Whether on account of the inordinate delay in handing over possession, the Apartment Buyers were entitled to terminate the agreement, and claim refund of the amounts deposited with interest. While discussing the second issue, the bench referred to clauses of the agreement and observed that the same reflect the wholly one-sided terms of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement, which are entirely loaded in favour of the Developer, and against the allottee at every step. The court said that the terms of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement are oppressive and wholly one-sided, and would constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. CASE: IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. vs. ABHISHEK KHANNA [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5785 OF 2019 ] CORAM: Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee CITATION: LL 2021 SC 14 https://livelaw.in/top-stories/apartment-buyer-agreement-unfair-trade-practice-supreme-court-168274