The contractual terms of the contract of 08.05.2012 are ex-unilateral, unfair and inappropriate. The inclusion of such unilateral clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair business practice, in accordance with Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as it uses unfair methods or practices for the sale of dwellings by the owner. The Supreme Court analyzed the agreement and compared the options available to the owner and the purchaser with respect to the right of withdrawal/termination, the interest rate and the amount of the refund. The Court found that there were great inconsistencies between the two parties and that it did not hesitate to hold the agreement unilaterally, and the buyer was invited to sign on the polka dot lines! The National Commission issued its final judgment of 23 October 2018 (“judgment”) and issued the decision in favour of the owner who ordered the owner to grant haryana Real Estate (regulation and development) a 10.7% repayment per year in 2017. In Pioneer Urban Land – Infrastructure Ltd/Govindan Raghavan, the Supreme Court ruled that a unilateral contract contrary to the interests of the purchasers cannot be final and binding if it is proven that the buyer was likely to be considered signable on the polka dot line. The summit confirmed the orders and judgments of the National Commission of Disputes Consumer Redressal Commission for the repayment of money, as well as interest as compensation. Referring to the agreement, the bank indicated that the unilateral clauses were obvious in that interest on late payments from the buyer to the owner was as high as 18%, while the interest the owner had to pay to the buyer for the late holding was only 9%. The bank also indicated that the termination clause in the agreement was also unilateral, since the purchaser had to wait 12 months after the expiry of the additional period after the agreement and then had to give notice for a period of 90 days, while the owner could automatically terminate the contract if a portion of the buyer was behind on its contractual obligations and the buyer was not to be delayed within 30 days of the termination period. The two-judge bank of the Supreme Court, taking into account the precedents and facts in the case, upheld the National Commission`s injunction and dismissed the appeal. In the case, the Bank made the following essential observations: As a result, the Bank dismissed the appeals and ordered the contractor to repay the amounts, in accordance with the order of the National Commission.
The owner objected to the consumer panel`s order and stated that the purchasers had not terminated the contract by terminating a 90-day period as planned. This complaint challenged the national commission`s (National Commission) order that the National Commission ordered the contractor to reimburse the amount deposited by the home buyer, along with interest on compensation.