It is in this background the averment made in paragraph 6 of their complaint filed before the Commission would acquire significance and the relevant averment has been noticed hereinabove and at the cost of repetition when perused it would clearly indicate that when the appellants were in search of office space “for their self-employment and to run their business and earn their livelihood” they had entered into an agreement to purchase the same from the original allotees. (Para 13)
There being no plea with regard to the building or commercial complex being ready for being occupied, having been raised by the respondent in its counter affidavit and the communication dated 25.01.2016 also not disclosing that the office premises proposed to be sold in favour of the appellants being ready to be occupied but only evidencing the fact that the permissive possession of premises was being offered, it cannot be presumed that possession of office premises which is ready to offer was being delivered to the appellants. Hence, to balance the equities, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to refund the amount it has received from appellants with interest calculated @ 12% per annum which would not only meet the ends of justice (Para 16)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 251 SC
[2023 INSC 807]
Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. M/S Vipul Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 5858 of 2015-Decided on 6-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-STPLWeb-251-SC.pdf