{"id":526,"date":"2026-04-29T08:36:07","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T08:36:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mudralegal.com\/blog\/?p=526"},"modified":"2026-04-29T08:43:17","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T08:43:17","slug":"unlockable-unit-dispute-which-court-can-give-relief-when-assured-returns-are-not-paid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mudralegal.com\/blog\/unlockable-unit-dispute-which-court-can-give-relief-when-assured-returns-are-not-paid\/","title":{"rendered":"Unlockable Unit Dispute: Which court can give relief when assured returns are not paid?"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

<\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The judgment in Megha Ohri vs WTC Noida Development Company Pvt Ltd<\/strong> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

 
<\/span>Background of the Case<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The plaintiff invested in multiple unlockable units in a commercial project known as \u201cWorld Trade Centre Noida.\u201d The builder had widely promoted the project by offering monthly assured returns at the rate of 12% per annum<\/strong>, payable monthly, along with a promise of timely completion.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Dispute Regarding Assured Returns<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Settlement Agreement and Its Breach<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

During earlier proceedings initiated by the buyer, the parties entered into Settlement Deeds dated 22.12.2021<\/strong>, wherein the builder agreed to clear outstanding assured returns and continue paying monthly assured returns until possession.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 
<\/strong><\/span>Proceedings Before the Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The suit was filed as a commercial dispute<\/strong> seeking recovery of assured returns and enforcement of the settlement agreement.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The defendant failed to appear before the Court and was proceeded ex-parte<\/strong>. However, the Court clarified that even in such cases, the plaintiff must prove the case through evidence and documents.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Upon examining the agreements, settlement deeds, and payment records, the Court found that the plaintiff had successfully established her claim.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Observations of the Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

It was further held that the settlement agreement reaffirmed the builder\u2019s liability, and stopping payments thereafter amounted to a clear breach.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court also drew an adverse inference against the builder for not contesting the case.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Relief Granted by the Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and granted:<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n