This episode delves into a significant Supreme Court of India ruling (2025 INSC 808) concerning real estate development and consumer rights. We explore the case of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) versus Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar, homebuyers who sought refunds and compensation due to significant delays in receiving their residential flats in the 'Purab Premium Apartments' scheme.

The central dispute revolved around the scope of compensation for these delays. While the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directed GMADA to refund the homebuyers' deposited amounts along with 8% compounded annual interest, and pay compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs, they additionally ordered GMADA to pay the interest homebuyers incurred on personal loans taken from banks like State Bank of India.

The Supreme Court specifically examined whether consumer forums had the authority to impose liability on the developer for these personal loan interests. Drawing on precedents such as Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank and GDA v. Balbir Singh, the Court reaffirmed that allottees are entitled to a refund of their amount paid with reasonable interest for non-delivery or delay, and may also be entitled to compensation for loss or injury, including harassment.

However, the Court critically analyzed the award of personal loan interest, referencing its findings in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda. It concluded that the 8% interest awarded on the principal amount (as stipulated in the Letter of Intent) already serves as compensation for being deprived of the investment. Awarding additional interest on personal loans amounts to compensation under "multiple heads" for the "singular default" of delay, which is not sustainable without exceptional or strong reasons. The Court emphasized that the buyer's method of financing, whether through savings or a loan, is irrelevant to the developer's liability for deficiency or delay in service. This landmark ruling clarifies that, in such circumstances, developers are not automatically liable for interest on personal loans taken by homebuyers, thereby limiting compensation to the stipulated interest on the deposited amount and general damages for mental agony and litigation costs.

In Episode 15 of Legal Snippet – Law Simplified, we tackle a widespread myth in property transactions: the belief that a General Power of Attorney, combined with a sale agreement and a will, can legally transfer ownership without registration. Drawing from two recent Supreme Court judgments (2023 & 2025), this episode explains why such methods—though common—are legally flawed and ultimately unenforceable.

We explore the Court's reaffirmation of the Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana precedent, which firmly establishes that title to immovable property can only be conveyed through a properly executed and registered deed. You’ll learn what makes a property transfer valid, why registration is more than just a bureaucratic step, and how relying on informal documents can leave you without legal recourse.

This episode is a must-listen for anyone involved in property transactions—buyers, sellers, or even legal advisors. We break down the complex legal language into plain English to help you protect your rights and avoid costly mistakes.

Is it legal for a company to demand big payouts if you leave early? In this episode, we break down the Supreme Court’s ruling on employment bonds in Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B Narnaware. We unpack what counts as a valid contract, when a bond crosses into illegal restraint of trade, and how public policy shapes the limits of employment agreements. Learn how this decision affects workers, employers, and the fine print in your next job offer.