Summary: The High Court of Madras, led by Judge P.B. Balaji, overturned a State Commission decision that required Mr. K. Murali to return property to landowners B.R. Beedu and Ms. Sangeetha Beedu. The case was about a disputed apartment sale and refund issues.
Mr. K. Murali bought an apartment through a deal made on January 23, 2020, with JP Properties. However, he claimed the developer didn't provide good service. Looking for a solution, he went to the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission in early 2024, asking for either the apartment or his money back.
Quote: "The petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission... seeking the relief of possession and alternatively refund of the amounts advanced."
On February 20, 2025, the State Commission ordered a refund of ₹62,30,000 to Mr. Murali. The landowners agreed and deposited the amount with extra costs. Even after getting the money, Mr. Murali challenged the need to sign a property return document.
The landowners, B.R. Beedu and Ms. Sangeetha Beedu, asked for a review to cancel the original agreement, which led to the State Commission telling Mr. Murali to return the property. Mr. Murali opposed this order, arguing it was beyond what the Commission could do.
Quote: "The State Commission has directed the petitioner to execute a re-conveyance deed."
Mr. Murali's lawyer, Mr. Seshadri, argued that the State Commission didn't have the power to force property return. He noted ongoing other legal cases, suggesting the issue should be settled in a proper court.
On the other hand, the landowners' lawyer, Mr. Sundar Narayan, argued that Mr. Murali had no reason to object since he got the refund. He insisted the State Commission's decision was fair.
Judge P.B. Balaji decided in favor of Mr. Murali, saying the State Commission went beyond its powers. The court emphasized that consumer protection laws do not allow commissions to order property returns, a power only civil courts have.
Quote: "The order passed by the State Commission exercising power of review is held to be in excess of its jurisdiction."
The High Court's decision does not affect the ongoing civil case about the property's cancellation. The case shows the complexities of consumer disputes involving real estate and the limits of consumer protection bodies. The case continues in civil court, where the final decision about the property will be made.
