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.

In this 13th episode of "Legal Snippet – Law Simplified," we delve into Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which addresses the consequences when a complainant fails to appear in court or passes away during proceedings. We'll explore the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and practical implications of this provision, highlighting how it balances judicial efficiency with the rights of the accused. Whether you're a legal professional, student, or someone interested in understanding the intricacies of criminal procedure, this episode offers valuable insights into the application and nuances of Section 256 CrPC.

Ever worried about missing a loan payment? You're not alone. Understanding what happens when a loan account, overdraft, or cash credit facility falls into difficulty, specifically becoming a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), is crucial for many borrowers. This episode cuts through the complexity to explain exactly what an NPA is, how banks classify them, and what rights you have in this challenging situation.

We'll explore the regulatory framework that defines an NPA, like interest or principal being overdue for more than 90 days for a term loan, or an overdraft/cash credit account remaining "out of order". Learn about the early warning signs, known as Special Mention Accounts (SMA), which indicate incipient stress before an account becomes an NPA.

Discover that asset classification is primarily based on the record of recovery. While banks should not classify an account as NPA merely due to temporary deficiencies, issues like old stock statements for working capital or unreviewed/unrenewed credit limits can trigger classification. An important point to note is that if a borrower has multiple facilities with a bank, generally all facilities are treated as NPA if one becomes non-performing.

While NPA classification itself doesn't carry the same severe civil and penal consequences as being classified a 'wilful defaulter' or facing 'fraud' charges (which can include being barred from institutional finance or criminal proceedings), it does have significant impacts, including the potential for banks to take measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, such as taking possession or selling mortgaged property.

The question of whether borrowers are entitled to a prior hearing before NPA classification has seen conflicting judgments from various High Courts. Although some courts have held that borrowers should be informed and given an opportunity to represent, others have concluded that no prior hearing is required before NPA classification. The Supreme Court has mandated prior hearings for fraud classification due to serious consequences, but the civil consequences of standard NPA classification are argued to be less drastic. Crucially, the SARFAESI Act does provide borrowers with safeguards and the ability to raise objections against NPA classification under Sections 13(3-A) and 17.

Furthermore, banks are encouraged to provide consumer education to borrowers about the concepts of overdue, SMA, and NPA classification.

Tune in to understand these complex banking norms, how NPA classification works, and the rights and safeguards available to borrowers under the existing legal and regulatory framework.

What happens when boardroom battles threaten a company’s future? In this episode, we dive into the NCLT’s crucial ruling on the Escientia-Deccan dispute, where misuse of power, financial missteps, and minority shareholder oppression took center stage. From nullifying top-level appointments to enforcing buy-outs, we explain how the tribunal protected fairness and upheld corporate governance—making company law clear and relatable.

Who can claim compensation when a loved one dies in a road accident? In this episode, we explore the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling in Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Khushwah, where it broadened the definition of "legal representative" to ensure dependents like parents and siblings aren’t left out. We break down how this judgment brings compassion and fairness to motor accident claims—and why it matters to every Indian family.

What happens if you drive into a FASTag lane without a FASTag? Is paying double fair? In this episode, we unpack the Bombay High Court's ruling that backs the government's push for FASTag tolls. We explore why the policy was challenged, how the court weighed public inconvenience against smoother traffic, and what it means for your rights as a commuter. No legal jargon—just a clear look at the law behind your next highway ride.