Sriganesh Chandrasekaran v. Unishire Homes LLP 2026 INSC 172 - Consumer Protection - Landowners- Developer Lapse
"For the lapse on the part of the developer, the landowners, who are in no way concerned with the construction, cannot be held liable for deficiency in service"
Consumer Protection Act - In this case, in respect of the flats falling in developer’s share, the developer has the right to enter into sale agreements, undertake construction, receive consideration, transfer possession and convey title. The construction has to be carried out by the developer. The delay in delivery of possession is in respect of flats falling to the share of the developer- SC held: For the lapse on the part of the developer, the landowners, who are in no way concerned with the construction, cannot be held liable for deficiency in service, particularly when the developer has indemnified them against acts of commission or omission in construction.
Case Info
Basic Case Details
Case name and neutral citation:Sriganesh Chandrasekaran & Others v. M/s Unishire Homes LLP & Others, 2026 INSC 172
Court and coram:Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate JurisdictionCoram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Judgment date:20 February 2026 (New Delhi)
Statutes / Laws Referred
The judgment arises under and refers to:
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – appeal filed under Section 67 against orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC/Commission).
The core legal issues relate to “deficiency in service” and delay compensation in a real‑estate/joint development context, and to whether landowners can be held jointly and severally liable along with the developer.
Case Laws and Citations Mentioned
The Court notes that the appellants relied on the following decisions (but finds them not helpful on the facts here):
- Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 601
- Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711
- Santhosh Narasimha Murthy & Ors. v. M/s Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 8418 of 2022 (order dated 25.07.2023)
- Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3642 of 2018
- Order dated 20.09.2024 in Civil Appeal Diary No. 37702 of 2024 with SLP (C) Diary No. 33331 of 2024
The Court specifically observes that in Akshay and in Santhosh Narasimha Murthy the developer alone was directed to pay delay compensation, which actually supports the landowners’ position in this case.
Brief Summary (Three Sentences)
Flat purchasers complained before the NCDRC about a delay of more than six years in delivery of flats in a joint development project, and the Commission directed the developer to complete construction, hand over possession and pay interest/compensation, while not holding the landowners liable for delay. In review, after this Court earlier set aside an ex parte order, the NCDRC again declined to make the landowners jointly and severally liable for delay compensation but directed both landowners and developer to transfer title and execute sale deeds, recognizing that construction and sale of the developer’s share were exclusively the developer’s responsibility under the JDA and GPA. The Supreme Court holds that there is no principal–agent liability for construction delay on these facts, upholds fastening delay compensation only on the developer, and dismisses the purchasers’ appeals seeking joint and several liability of the landowners.
