Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 1 2025:CGHC:11052-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No.74 of 2023 1 - Raipur Development Authority, Through Chief Executive Officer, Address 2nd Floor, Bhakt, Mata Karma, Vyavasayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus Appellant
Legal Reasoning
1 - M/s Bhardwaj Promoter and Builders Through Mr. Lokesh Chandrakar S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Chandrakar, R/o House No.G-17, Shriram Park, D.D.U. Nagar, Daganiya, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh Respondent MA No.70 of 2023 1 - Raipur Development Authority Through Chief Executive Officer, Address- 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma, Vyavsayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Appellant 1 - Mr. Lakesh Chandrakar S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Chandrakar R/o House No. G-17, Shriram Park, D.D.U. Nagar, Daganiya, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent 2 MA No. 71 of 2023 1 - Raipur Development Authority Through Chief Executive Officer, Address- 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma, Vyavsayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Appellant 1 - M/s Bhardwaj Promoter And Builders Through Mr. Lakesh Chandrakar, S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Chandrakar, R/o House No. G-17, Shriram Park, D.D.U. Nagar, Daganiya, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) MA No.73 of 2023 1 - Raipur Development Authority Through Chief Executive Officer, Address - 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma, Vyavsayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Versus Appellant 1 - Mr. Sunil Chandrakar S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Chandrakar R/o House No. G-17, Shriram Park, D.D.U. Nagar, Daganiya, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent For Appellants : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhinav Kardekar, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 06/03/2025 3 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court dated 19.06.2024 in MA No.102/2023 in between Raipur Development Authority vs Smt. Sonal Shrivastava and another, therefore, the present appeals may also be
Decision
disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. 2. This Court vide order dated 19.06.2024 in MA No.102/2023 observed in paras 8 to 14 as under:- “ 8. Section 18 (1) and 19(4) of the Act, 2016 gives a right to the allottee for return of amount of compensation. For the sake of brevity relevant part of Section 18 (1) of the Act, 2016 is reproduced hereinbelow:- 18. Return of amount and compensation. (1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,— (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: 9. The Chhattisgarh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 has been made in exercise of powers conferred by Section 84 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, State Government, hereby, makes the rules for regulation and development of real estate in the State of Chhattisgarh. Chapter V of Rules of 2017 speaks about rate of interest payable of the promoter and the allottee and the timelines for refund. Rule 17 of the 4 Rules of 2017 whch is relevant is reproduced hereinunder:- 17. Rate of interest payable of the promoter and the allottee.- The rate of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee or by the allottee to the promoter, as the case may be, shall be the State Bank of India Prime Lending Rate plus two percent. 10. Further Section 2 (za) of the Act, 2016 which defines the interest postulates that the interest would be payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof. For the sake of brevity Section 2 (za) with explanation (i) (ii) are reproduced hereinbelow:- 2 (za) “interest” means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause— (i) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; (ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid; 11. The Supreme Court in the case of NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2021) 18 SCC 1 at para 24 has held as under:- “24.The unqualified right of the allottee to seek refund referred under Section 18(1)(a) and Section 19(4) of the Act is not dependent on any contingencies or stipulations thereof. It appears that the legislature has consciously provided this right of refund on demand as an unconditional absolute right to the allottee, if the promoter fails to give possession of the apartment, plot or building within the time stipulated under the terms of the agreement regardless of unforeseen events or stay orders of the Court/Tribunal, which is in either way not attributable 5 to the allottee/homebuyer, the promoter is under an obligation to refund the amount on demand with interest at the rate prescribed by the State Government including compensation in the manner provided under the Act with the proviso that if the allottee does not wish to withdraw from the project, he shall be entitled for interest for the period of delay till handing over possession at the rate prescribed.” 12. This Court in MA No.42/2023 decided on 15/06/2023 approved the interest @ 10.5 % awarded by the RERA Appellate Tribunal and against the said decision of this Court, the Promoter went to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15518/2023 wherein the Supreme Court by order dated 3/05/2024 affirmed the order of this Court on merits. However, with the willingness of the respondent/allottee the interest was reduced to 8.5% per annum in that case. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the instant case, there is no willingness on the part of the allottee in respect of the interest. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, since the issue has already been no more res integra and settled proposition exist about payment of interest, no question of law arises for consideration in this case. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 3. In view of the above, the present appeal is also dismissed in light of the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in MA No.102/2023. 4. The copy of the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in MA No.102/2023 be kept along with the record of the present appeal. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala Sd/- Sachin Singh Rajput Judge