GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GMADA) THROUGH ITS ESTATE OFFICER (H) VS ANUPAM GARG ETC.
The case is between Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Its Estate Officer (H) and Anupam Garg, embodying a critical question of Law, i.e., whether the Homebuyers have the Right to get compensated for delay in flat delivery? Whether the Developer is entitled to pay the homebuyer’s bank loan interest for the delay in flat delivery?
The Facts of the case were that GMADA launched a scheme of residential flats termed ‘Purab Premium Apartments’ to be constructed in the Sector 88 locality, at Mohali and in the said scheme, Mr. Anupam Garg has booked a flat. However, the scheduled date of delivery of possession was 21st May, 2015, but when Mr. Anupam Garg visited the development site in May, 2015, he found no development commensurate with the time that had passed.
The State Commission in the instant matter has held that Mr. Anupam Garg was entitled to withdraw from the scheme and has passed the order wherein the state commission has held GMADA should refund the entire deposited amount of Rs.41,29,619/- to Mr. Anupam Garg, along with interest at the rate of 8%, compounded. Moreover, GMADA shall pay a compensation of Rs . 60,000/- for the mental tension and harassment and Rs. 30,000/- as costs of litigation. Furthermore, the opposite party pay the interest paid by Mr. Anupam Garg to the State Bank of Hyderabad and the State Bank of India on the loan taken from it and paid to the GMADA for the purchase of the flat as charged by the Bank.
The Supreme Court of India held that the amount of Rs . 41,29,619/-, along with interest at the rate of 8%, compounded, is the amount to be paid by the GMADA. However, apart from this, no amount of interest on the loan taken by Mr. Anupam Garg could have been awarded.
The significance of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) vs Anupam Garg lies in reinforcing the rights of homebuyers against institutional delay and inefficiency. The decision underscores the importance of accountability in public housing projects and offers partial relief to aggrieved buyers. While the Supreme Court upheld the refund with compounded interest, it drew a firm boundary by rejecting the claim for interest paid by the buyer on home loans, thereby balancing consumer protection with judicial restraint. As real estate litigation grows across India, this judgment invites a broader conversation on timely delivery, financial accountability, and the evolving jurisprudence around compensatory justice in housing matters.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/36526/36526_2019_3_1505_62151_Judgement_04-Jun-2025.pdf