⚖️ Supreme Court Judgment Summary
Padmini Infrastructure Developers v. Royal Garden Residents Welfare Association (28 Sept 2021)
📚 Delhi Law Academy Jaipur presents below for aspirants of Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS), DJS, PCS (J), and other Judicial Services across India, a very important judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on 28th September 2021.
The Court directed the builder to remove all building material stored in the club house, hand over possession to the Residents Welfare Association (RWA), and pay monetary compensation for failing to provide promised facilities like water softening plant, fire fighting equipment, second health club, second swimming pool, and a furnished Club House.
📖 Case Information
Case Title: Padmini Infrastructure Developers v. Royal Garden Residents Welfare Association
Date of Judgment: 28 September, 2021
Summarized by: Delhi Law Academy Jaipur
⚖️ J U D G M E N T
1. Both the consumer (complainant) and the opposite party appealed against the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), one seeking additional reliefs and the other challenging the reliefs already granted.
3. M/s Padmini Infrastructure Developers (India) Ltd. constructed around 282 apartments on NOIDA-allotted land. Possession was given between 1998–2001, while the completion certificate was issued in December 2001.
4. Flat purchasers formed the Royal Garden Residents Welfare Association (RWA) in September 2003 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
5. On 15.11.2003, the RWA entered an agreement with the builder for maintenance. Later, it filed Consumer Complaint No. 9 of 2007 before NCDRC.
📝 Reliefs Sought by the Complainant
- Completion & operationalization of water softening plant
- Completion & certification of fire safety equipment
- Furnishing a second health club (Tower Blue Heaven 2)
- Completion of a second swimming pool
- Providing furnished Club House in Eden Tower
- Vacating rented terrace portion (Tower Eden)
- Compensation for harassment, mental agony & damages
📌 National Commission’s Interim Order
On 04.06.2008, a Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect facilities. The report submitted on 08.07.2008 led NCDRC to partly allow the complaint on 05.01.2010, directing the builder to complete the facilities and supply fire safety certification within 10 weeks, with compliance report by an independent architect.
🔍 Observations
15. Cause of action continued even after the Agreement dated 15.11.2003.
23. Builder failed to prove that facilities were handed over in a fully functional state; no acknowledgment was taken from RWA.
26. Club house at Eden Tower was still in builder’s possession, with stored materials, showing retained control of services.
27. Thus, NCDRC’s reliefs in favour of RWA required no interference.
🚪 Terrace Dispute
39. RWA sought eviction of a tenant from Tower Eden terrace. Since it involved a third party, NCDRC rightly left it to the RWA to seek remedy before an appropriate forum.
🏛️ Supreme Court’s Final Order
41. The appeal of the builder was partly allowed, modifying NCDRC’s order:
- 💰 RWA entitled to ₹60 lakhs compensation with accrued interest.
- 🚧 Builder to remove all building material stored in Eden Tower club house.
- 🔑 Builder to hand over possession of the club house to RWA within two weeks.
📚 Further Reading for Law Aspirants
Explore more useful resources from Delhi Law Academy to strengthen your preparation:
❓ Frequently Asked Questions on Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court ordered the builder to hand over the clubhouse to the Residents Welfare Association, remove stored building material, and pay ₹60 lakhs with interest as compensation for failing to provide promised facilities.
The RWA filed a complaint because the builder failed to deliver promised amenities such as a water softening plant, fire safety equipment, an additional swimming pool, a second health club, and a functional clubhouse.
The Supreme Court awarded the RWA a total monetary compensation of ₹60 lakhs along with accrued interest, in lieu of the reliefs sought for essential facilities.
The NCDRC had partly allowed the complaint and directed the builder to complete and operationalize essential facilities, including fire safety certification and furnishing of the clubhouse, within a stipulated time frame.
The judgment reinforces that builders are legally bound to provide promised facilities and hand over complete possession of common areas. It strengthens the rights of RWAs to demand accountability and compensation in case of defaults.
This case is significant for law students and judiciary aspirants as it illustrates consumer protection, builder liability, and judicial reasoning in enforcing promises made to homebuyers — all key areas of civil and consumer law.
Contact us
📍 Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur Branch
6C, Tower 2, Coaching Hub, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur – 302033
📞 Phone:
+91 9911916552
+91 8447285606
✉️ Email:
contactus@delhilawacademy.com