Introduction
The judgment in Megha Ohri vs WTC Noida Development Company Pvt Ltd provides important clarity for buyers of unlockable units who face confusion regarding the correct legal forum. The case highlights that disputes relating to assured returns and settlement agreements may not always be resolved under real estate authorities and can be effectively addressed through civil/commercial courts.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff invested in multiple unlockable units in a commercial project known as “World Trade Centre Noida.” The builder had widely promoted the project by offering monthly assured returns at the rate of 12% per annum, payable monthly, along with a promise of timely completion.
Based on these representations, the plaintiff entered into Developer Buyer Agreements in 2013 and 2018 and paid the entire sale consideration within the stipulated time. The agreements specifically provided that assured returns would be paid till the offer of possession, which was to be made within three years from the date of execution of the agreements.
Dispute Regarding Assured Returns
The dispute arose when the builder failed to adhere to its contractual obligations. The builder initially reduced the assured returns to 50% and subsequently stopped payments altogether from March 2021.
Further, the builder unilaterally adjusted the assured returns against possession charges despite not offering possession. This conduct was contrary to the agreed terms between the parties and led to financial loss to the buyer.
Settlement Agreement and Its Breach
During earlier proceedings initiated by the buyer, the parties entered into Settlement Deeds dated 22.12.2021, wherein the builder agreed to clear outstanding assured returns and continue paying monthly assured returns until possession.
Based on this assurance, the buyer withdrew earlier proceedings. However, the builder again defaulted and stopped payments from December 2022, later stating through email that payments would remain on hold until completion of the project.
The Court noted that such conduct was a clear breach of the settlement terms and that the builder had no right to unilaterally alter agreed conditions.
Proceedings Before the Court
The suit was filed as a commercial dispute seeking recovery of assured returns and enforcement of the settlement agreement.
The defendant failed to appear before the Court and was proceeded ex-parte. However, the Court clarified that even in such cases, the plaintiff must prove the case through evidence and documents.
Upon examining the agreements, settlement deeds, and payment records, the Court found that the plaintiff had successfully established her claim.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the plaintiff had complied with all obligations and paid the entire consideration, whereas the builder failed to pay assured returns as agreed.
It was further held that the settlement agreement reaffirmed the builder’s liability, and stopping payments thereafter amounted to a clear breach.
The Court also drew an adverse inference against the builder for not contesting the case.
Relief Granted by the Court
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and granted:
-
- Recovery of ₹12,66,990 towards arrears of assured returns
-
- Recovery of ₹7,60,194 towards future assured returns up to December 2024
-
- Interest at 9% per annum on the awarded amounts
-
- Enforcement of the settlement agreement
-
- Litigation costs including advocate’s fees
Conclusion
The decision in this case provides clarity to buyers of unlockable units who often face rejection or confusion regarding the appropriate legal remedy. It establishes that where a builder defaults on assured returns or breaches a settlement agreement, the buyer can seek recovery and enforcement through the appropriate civil forum.
The judgment reinforces that contractual promises made by builders, especially in assured return schemes, are legally enforceable and cannot be ignored or modified unilaterally.