Delhi High Court
Shouryatowers Pvt. Ltd vs Surjeet Singh & Ors on 25 August, 2025
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 25th, August, 2025
+ CM(M) 3109/2024 & CM APPL. 44430/2024 & CM APPL.
44432/2024
SHOURYATOWERS PVT. LTD.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prem Prakash, Ms. Deepali
Nanda, Mr. Tarush, Advs.
versus
SURJEET SINGH & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Atul Aggarwal, Mr. Jalaj
Aggarwal, Mr. Ravi Mittal, Mr.
Devanand Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. A complaint was filed by one Sh. Surjeet Singh (since deceased) way-
back in the year 2014 before learned Delhi State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short „State Commission‟).
2. Such complaint was allowed by learned State Commission.
3. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 13.09.2019 passed by learned State
Commission, a first appeal was filed by the opposite party i.e. M/s Shourya
Towers Pvt. Ltd., before learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (in short „NCDRC‟) and, such appeal has been dismissed by
learned NCDRC on 15.03.2024.
4. Opposite party has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3109/2024 1
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:53:39
filing present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The facts lie in a very narrow compass.
6. According to case of the complainant, he was in search of some
residential accommodation for his own use and in the process, he came
across an advertisement of opposite party. He met the concerned officer of
the opposite party and was apprised that the project in question i.e. “Lotus
Pond”, situated at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad was already under construction
and would be completed within a period of 12 months approximately.
7. A rosy picture of the abovesaid project was portrayed and he was told
that if he was interested in the abovesaid project, he should purchase the
same from a certified real estate agent or through contact of opposite party‟s
office bearers who were offering some units on re-sale. He was, eventually,
made to purchase one unit of the abovesaid project i.e. Unit No. B3/101
measuring 1545 sq. ft. for a sum of Rs.20,16,225/-.
8. The transaction, according to the complainant, took place on
25.04.2005 and he was also made to pay premium of Rs.10 lacs in cash for
the abovesaid amount.
9. According to complainant, the construction of the abovesaid project
was not in terms of the promise and assurances given to him and that,
initially, he was apprised that only 80 units were to be constructed but, later
on, he noticed that opposite party had started constructing extra floors in the
building. When he confronted the opposite party in this regard and sought
reasons thereof, he was, rather, threatened of dire consequences and was
even told that his allotment would be cancelled.
10. The complainant became apprehensive because of change in number
of units which would automatically mean that the extent of usage of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3109/2024 2
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:53:39
common area would get reduced which would have natural ripple effect over
the other facilities including parking. Since there was no redressal of his
grievances, he sent a legal notice to the opposite party but, to make things
worse, the complainant was rather served with notice of cancellation of his
unit.
11. Fact, however, remains that since the opposite party refunded the
amount, the complainant was compelled to file the abovesaid complaint
seeking handing over of the possession of the abovesaid unit and also sought
compensation of Rs.25 lacs as compensation for harassment.
12. The abovesaid complaint was resisted by opposite party i.e. builder,
and according to them, the flat had been cancelled and the amount had been
refunded by way of demand draft dated 02.08.2013 and, after having
accepted the abovesaid refund, the complaint was not maintainable.
13. After completion of pleadings, the complainant filed his affidavit and
from the side of opposite party, affidavit of one Sh. Praveen Chandra Mishra
was filed.
14. After hearing arguments from both the sides, the learned State
Commission disposed of the abovesaid complaint while directing as under:
“17. The act of the OP in cancelling the allotment on the
ground of default in payment by the complainant is nothing but
putting a cart before the horse. OP itself was guilty of delay in
completing the project, deviating from the initial sanctioned
plan. To sum up the complaint is allowed, complainant is
directed to make the payment @ Rs.17901-per. sq. ft. equal to
Rs.27,65,5501- minus Rs.10,77,4341- already paid by
complainant vide receipt Ex. P-1 and not refunded by OP. In
nutshell complainant will pay Rs.16,88, 116/- to OP within one
month and thereafter, OP would allot flat no. 1011 Block-B in
„Lotus Pond‟ measuring 1545sq. ft. within another one month
and execute conveyance deed in respect thereof in favour ofSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3109/2024 3
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:53:39
complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any
compensation separately because he is getting the flat at old
rate and thereby earning appreciation in price.”
15. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid order, the opposite party filed an
appeal before learned NCDRC and raised following contentions, which are
found recorded in para 8 of the impugned order which read as under:
“8. The Appellant/OP Builder mainly raised the following
objections in the instant Appeal: –
(a) The complaint should be dismissed as the Complainant is a
defaulter throughout, and the flat was rightly cancelled by the
OP. The complainant accepted a refund of Rs 9,40,055.75 after
cancellation, rendering the complaint non-maintainable.
(b) The OP provided proof of allotment of the flat to a third
party, Divine Relators, after repeated default reminders to the
complainant. The State Commission did not give due credence
to the conduct and repeated defaults of the Complainant and
relied only on this document, which is questionable.
(c) The State Commission’s consideration of a cash payment of
Rs 10 lakhs alleged by the complainant is improper. It was not
paid to the Appellant, but to a dealer. Thus, attributing this
payment to the appellant is unjustified.
(d) The complaint concerning the “Lotus Pond” flat is time
barred, as the project was completed in 2009 and fully
delivered. Therefore, it should be dismissed.
(e) The complaint is not maintainable without impleading
Rishab Estates as a party, and should be dismissed.
(f) The State Commission erred in deciding the territorial
jurisdiction issue. The cause of action arose in Noida, where the
complainant made payments, and the project is situated in
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Hence, the Commission lacks
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”
16. It will be also important to mention that the complainant died when
the complaint was pending adjudication and the abovesaid appeal was
resisted by his legal heirs.
17. All the abovesaid contentions were considered by learned NCDRC
and the first appeal has been dismissed while observing as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3109/2024 4
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:53:39
14. It is an uncontested position that the Complainant had
entered into an agreement on 30.08.2013 for purchase of a flat
No. 83/101 in “Lotus Pond” project of the OP in Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad. In terms of the agreement the flat was to be
completed and handed over within 12 months. While OP
admitted receiving Rs.20,16,225/- from the Complainant, the
OP refuted liability towards additional payment of Rs.10 Lakhs
in cash as a premium allegedly paid to the agent of the OP. The
Complainant alleged that the Appellant .failed to fulfil their
obligations under the agreement, particularly in terms of timely
construction and delivery of the flat in question as per agreed
specifications. In addition, he raised concerns about the
unauthorized construction of extra floors, which impacts
common area usage and facilities like parking. On the other
hand, the Appellant asserted that they appropriately cancelled
allotment of the flat to the Complainant due to defaults in
payment and subsequently refunded the amount. They also
argued that the flat was already sold to a third party, after the
cancellation. Therefore, the main issues to be determined
include whether the Appellant fulfilled the contractual
obligations, validity of the cancellation of the allotment of the
flat, impact of alleged default in payment by the Complainant,
legality of selling the flat to a third party and the State
Commission’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
15. The records including the order of the learned State
Commission dated 13.09.2019 reveal that, in support of his
claim the Complainant had filed a receipt dated 25.04.2005
pertaining to payment of Rs. 7,75,000/- on 18.,02.2019. This
receipt was issued by Shri Rajender Jain of Rishabh Estate.
Thereafter, as sought by the Counsel for the Complainant, Shri
Rajender Jain of Rishabh Estate was summoned and his
statement was recorded in part on 23.07.201.9. He admitted his
signatures on receipt at the space for signature of the seller and
stated that he received Rs.1 Lakh in cash from the Complainant
Shri Surjeet Singh. The Initial allotment was made in the name
of Shri Narender Kumar @ 1305/- per Sq Ft and the
Complainant purchased the same from him @1790/- per Sq Ft.
Rs.1 Lakh paid was towards part of difference in the original
allotment price and resale price amounting to Rs. 7,49,325/-,
leaving balance of Rs.6,49,325/- . He received the amount on
behalf of Shri Narender Kumar (the original allottee) and paid
the same to Shri Narender Kumar. While his further statement
was deferred on 23.07.2019, the witness did not appear on
08.08.2019 on the ground that a cousin of his was admitted in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3109/2024 5
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:53:39
ICU. On 04.09.2019 the counsel for OP did not appear. The
learned State Commission considered that there are
endorsements of payment of Rs.3,02,434/- vide cheque No.
409095 on 23.05.2005 to Shri Narender Kumar and Rs.
2,11,622/- vide two cheques No. 409096 and 409097 to Mis.
Shourya Tower Pvt Ltd. There was also a receipt for
Rs.2,50;000/- by the said Shri Rajinder Jain on 08.06:2005.
Also, there is endorsement for receipt of Rs.4,25,000/- on
27.06.2005. The total of these cash payments was Rs.7,75,000/-
and the Complainant claimed Rs.10 Lakhs as cash payment
made. Of this, Rs.2,11,622/- was acknowledged by OP and
allegedly refunded by the OP. In these circumstances; the
learned State Commission considered that the OP cannot be
allowed to enrich itself with over Rs.10,77,434/- by cancelling
the allotment and depositing only the undisputed amount in the
A/c of the Complainant. While the conduct of the OP in failing
to explain as to why it did not handover the demand draft to the
Complainant against receipt raised questions, the same of the
Complainant in reporting the matter to police supported his
contention.
16. As regards creation of third-party interest in respect of the
Flat in question by the OP, it was the initial contention of the
OP that, after cancellation of its allotment, it had already sold
the flat to someone else. On being directed to file copy of sale
deed, the OP failed to file the same till 26.04.2019. Intriguingly
thereafter, on 08.07.2019 it was stated that OP had not executed
any sale deed in respect of the said flat but it had allotted the
same to someone else and received the payment. On being
directed on 23.07.2019 to file a copy of the application of the
third person, allotment letter, proof of payment received by it,
mode of payment etc the same was filed before the State
Commission on 04.09.2019. Copy of allotment letter dated
30.08.2013 was in favour of M/s Divine Realtors for
Rs.43,61,9501. It stated that the payment had already been
made,· without being clear as to the mode of payment and
details. The copy of agreement dated 30.08.2013 was not on any
stamp paper to ascertain its validity and date and it was not
even notorized to indicate the date of execution. It is also
evident that in the Written Statement dated 03.09.2015 filed by
the OP, no mention was made of allotment or agreement in
favour of M/s Divine Realtors. Clearly, had such agreement
dated 30.08.2013 been executed before filing of the written
statement on 03.09.2015, it ought to have included this fact,
which is not so. Also, the OP did not even mention this fact in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3109/2024 6
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:53:39
the evidence affidavit filed by Praveen Chand Mishra on
13.04.2017.
17. The limited credibility of such versions, contentions and
documents wherein the OP stated that they already sold the flat
to someone else and on being directed to file a copy of sale
deed, it changed his stand and stated that flat was not sold and,
however, the same was allotted to third person and the
documents filed are unreliable. The limited credibility of the
version of the OP is therefore obvious. Further, the cause of
action in the case is continuous and, therefore, the objection of
limitation does not stand. Further, the objection · as regards
lack of territorial jurisdiction has also no substance as the office
of the OP is in Mayur Vihar, Delhi to confer territorial
jurisdiction of the learned State Commission.
18. In view of the above, the Order passed by the learned State
Commission dated 13.09.2019 in C.C. No.74/2014 is based on
facts and law and I find no reason to interfere with the same.
Consequently, the present FA No. 309 of 2020 is dismissed.
18. Apparently, all the important facets have been examined and
evaluated while considering the appeal as well.
19. The Court is conscious of scope of limited interference while
exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of
India. The impugned order can only be interjected when there is gross
illegality or perversity in the order.
20. Unfortunately, in the case in hand, nothing of that kind exists.
21. In the garb of present petition, the endeavour of the opposite party is
to seek appraisal of evidence all over again, which is neither justifiable nor
permissible.
22. This Court, while entertaining petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, cannot act as an Appellate Court and re-evaluate and
re-weigh the facts and evidence, particularly when the view of learned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3109/2024 7
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:53:39
NCDRC seems to be a plausible one. In Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd. v. Ibrat
Faizan, (2022) 4 HCC (Del) 492 this Court observed as under:
“13. Needless to say, any party that invokes the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution subjects itself to
the rigour of the provision. There can be no gainsaying the
position, correctly urged by Mr. Pal, that the jurisdiction of the
High Court, under Article 227, is not appellate but merely
supervisory. The parameters within which such jurisdiction is
required to be exercised stand crystallised in the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.
(2001) 8 SCC 97, Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022)
4 SCC 181 and Puri Investments v. Young Friends & Co. 2022
SCC OnLine SC 283″
23. In Garment Craft (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that
the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, does not act as a
court of first appeal to re-appreciate, re-weigh the evidence or facts upon
which the determination under challenge is based. It observed that
supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal
flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported and, thus, High
Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of
the fora below.
24. Viewed thus, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition
and the same is hereby dismissed.
25. Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
AUGUST 25, 2025/ck/pb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3109/2024 8
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:53:39
[ad_1]
Source link