Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

M/s. Imperia Structure Ltd v. Brig. Harit Pant

M/s. Imperia Structure Ltd v. Brig. Harit Pant

(Supreme Court Of India)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1816 OF 2022 | 28-03-2022

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“the National Commission” for short) in Consumer Case No.1043 of 2018.

2. The National Commission in paragraph 10 of its judgment relied upon the decision of this Court in Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni & Another, (2020) 10 SCC 783. Paragraph 25 of the decision in Imperia Structures Ltd. (supra) was as under:

“25. In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment duly completed by the date specified in the agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the Project. Such right of an allottee is specifically made “without prejudice to any other remedy available to him”. The right so given to the allottee is unqualified and if availed, the money deposited by the allottee has to be refunded with interest at such rate as may be prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates a situation where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the Project. In that case he is entitled to and must be paid interest for every month of delay till the handing over of the possession. It is up to the allottee to proceed either under Section 18(1) or under proviso to Section 18(1). The case of Himanshu Giri came under the latter category. The RERA Act thus definitely provides a remedy to an allottee who wishes to withdraw from the Project or claim return on his investment.”

3. Since the National Commission has followed the decision of this Court in Imperia Structures Ltd. (supra), we see no reason to entertain this appeal.

4. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

Advocate List
  • Ms. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Adv. Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Kanika Gomber, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. Anjani Kumar, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar Sehrawat, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Kant, AOR

  • Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv. Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Prabhash Malik, Adv. Ms. Aarthi Rajan, Adv. Ms. Aarthi Rajan, AOR

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Eq Citations
  • (2022) 7 SCC 703
  • LQ/SC/2022/433
Head Note

Consumer Protection — Consumer Forums — National Commission — National Commission relying on decision of Supreme Court — No reason to entertain appeal