Mumbai: The amicus curiae in the ongoing RERA case in the Bombay high court rejected the claims by promoters and developers that the interest they had to pay to the buyers in the event of not handing over possession within the stipulated time period was an unjust enrichment for the buyer. Justifying the clause of the Act that directs the promoter to pay interest to the buyer, the amicus stated that when the promoter misses the date of handing over possession it means that he holds on to the money and just like buyers are liable to pay interest on late payments of instalments, the promoter is also liable to pay interest and construing it as a penalty was not justified.
Advocate Darius Khambata who is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in deciding whether the contentions of the petitioners were valid said that the compensation clause of the RERA Act was justified and the objections were invalid.
