Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S Bptp Limited vs Terra Flat Buyers Association

Supreme Court28 November 2024B.R. Gavai

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where interest is awarded by a consumer court as compensation for mental agony and harassment in a refund matter, the payment of such interest should be made without deduction of Tax Deducted at Source under the Income Tax Act, in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON-REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 929

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.822-823 OF 2024

M/S BPTP LIMITED & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS

TERRA FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. These appeals challenge the judgment and

orders dated 31.05.2023 and 18.08.2023 passed by

the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission in Consumer Complaint No.44/2021 and

Review Application No. 249 of 2023 respectively,

vide which the appellants have been directed to

refund the respective complainants (buyers), the

names of whom are mentioned in a list handed over

in Court and is taken on record, the sum paid by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2024.12.04 09:55:34 IST Reason: each buyer along with interest @ 9% per annum from

the respective dates of deposit by the 2

concerned buyer till realization. The same has

been directed to be done within a period of three

months.

2. It is stated at the Bar that out of 14

complainants as mentioned in the list, the matter

has been amicably settled with 11 complainants and

so the issue only remains in respect of the 03

complainants.

3. As per the settlement, the appellants are

required to pay the amount received from each of

the complainants along with interest @ 9% per

annum.

4. Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior

counsel appearing for the complainants/respondents

submits that since the said complainants have been

prosecuting their remedy, this Court should direct

payment of interest @ 12% per annum.

5. We find that since the matter is settled with

a large number of complainants with interest @ 9%

per annum, the remaining three complainants should

also be given interest at the same rate.

6. The appellants had already deposited the

principal amount alongwith interest at the rate of 3

9 per cent per annum in the Registry of this Court.

7. The said amount is permitted to be withdrawn

by the complainant(s).

8. In the event, if there is any shortfall, the

same shall be made good by the appellants within a

period of four weeks from today.

9. The only issue that remains for consideration

is as to whether the actual amount should be paid

or it should be paid after deducting the TDS, as

per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

10. In this respect we may refer to paragraph 6

of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case

of Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Munshi

Ram, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 553.

11. In the present case also, the interest has

been awarded towards compensation as damages for

mental agony and harassment that is caused to the

buyers.

12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the case, we direct that the payment of interest

should be made without deducting TDS.

13. The appeals are, therefore, partly allowed. 4

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

….........................J (B.R. GAVAI)

...........................J (K.V. VISWANATHAN)

New Delhi November 28, 2024 5

ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVII-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 822-823/2024

M/S BPTP LIMITED & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

TERRA FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION Respondent(s)

(IA No. 253980/2023 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 80955/2024 - PERMISSION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AMOUNT, IA No. 107641/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION)

Date : 28-11-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Poddar, AOR Mr. Akash Dalal, Adv.

Mr. Sagar Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Shreya Tewari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR Mr. Aniket Jain, Adv.

Mr. Vidyut Kayarkar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed non-

reportable judgment.

2. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

[Signed non-reportable order is placed on the file] 6

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free