Matrix Constructions A Partnership Firm Thr. Its Partner Mr. Shyamlal Chandnani vs. Manisha Hitendra Varale

Held

The Court held that the Appellant's claim for interest on account of alleged delay in slab-wise payments by the Respondent-allottee was not genuine. The Court found that the alleged delay was minor and insignificant, and crucially, there was no contemporaneous communication from the Appellant to the Respondent demanding interest when the alleged delays occurred. The chart incorporated in the Appeal Memo was vague and lacked details. The letter dated August 4, 2015, did not constitute an admission of delay with specific details. The letter dated January 14, 2019, demanding Rs. 17,23,840/- as interest was issued seven months after the Respondent had made full payment in July 2018, and no details were provided for this amount. The Court found it shocking that despite full payment in July 2018, possession had not been delivered for six years, and the Occupancy Certificate was still not procured. The Court found no substantial question of law involved and rejected the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal's order was upheld.

Facts

The Appellant, Matrix Constructions, challenged an order dated January 31, 2022, passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal had allowed an appeal filed by the Respondent-allottee, Manisha Hitendra Varale, setting aside an order dated August 19, 2020, by the Regulatory Authority. The Appellate Tribunal directed the Appellant to pay the Respondent interest at SBI MCLR plus 2% on Rs. 44,95,000/- from July 1, 2019, until possession, and also awarded costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the Respondent. The Appellant contended that the Respondent had delayed payments as per the flat purchase agreement, entitling the Appellant to claim interest and adjust it against the amount payable to the Respondent. The Appellant argued that the Respondent had agreed to pay interest on delayed payments in a letter dated August 4, 2015, and a demand for interest was raised on January 14, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in directing the Appellant to pay interest to the Respondent without adjusting the interest payable by the Respondent for delayed payments, as per Clause 2 and Clause 4(vii) of the flat purchase agreement, and the Respondent's letters dated August 4, 2015, and January 14, 2019? Petitioner's Arguments: The Appellant argued that the Respondent-allottee had delayed in making payments as per the agreement. Clause 2 of the agreement stipulated slab-wise payments, and Clause 4(vii) entitled the Promoter to claim reasonable interest for such delays. The Appellant relied on the Respondent's letter dated August 4, 2015, agreeing to pay interest on delayed payments, and a subsequent letter dated January 14, 2019, demanding interest. The Appellant contended that the Appellate Tribunal should have directed an adjustment of the interest payable by the Respondent against the interest the Appellant was liable to pay. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the Respondent's side regarding the Appellant's contentions on delayed payments and adjustment of interest. However, the judgment notes that the Appellant did not participate in the proceedings before the Regulatory Authority or the Appellate Tribunal.