Referring to the agreement, La Bench stated that unilateral clauses were evident in the sense that the interest on late payments from the buyer to the contractor was up to 18%, while the interest that the contractor had to pay to the buyer for late ownership was only 9%. The Bench also stated that the termination clause of the agreement was also unilateral in that the buyer had to wait a period of 12 months after the expiry of the additional period provided for in the contract and then cancel a termination for a period of 90 days, while the contracting authority may automatically terminate the contract if the buyer is in arrears with its contractual obligations and the buyer has not fallen behind in the period of 30 days after termination by the contracting authority. The chamber considered an appeal against the National Consumer Commission`s injunction, which established that the clauses invoked by the contractor to oppose the plaintiff buyer`s claims for reimbursement were completely unilateral, unfair and inappropriate and could not be invoked. The contractual conditions of the contract of 08.05.2012 are unilateral, unfair and unreasonable. The inclusion of such unilateral clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, in so far as it uses unfair methods or practices to sell the dwellings by the developer. « The Supreme Court has held that the inclusion of unilateral terms in a master-buyer contract constitutes an unfair commercial practice, in accordance with section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. In short: Under the terms of the owner-buyer contract, the complainant had to apply for the certificate of occupancy within 39 months from the date of the search, with an additional period of 180 days. However, the contracting authority did not apply for the certificate of occupancy within the prescribed time and, as a result, the respondent filed a complaint with the National Commission for lack of services. « After examining the facts, the National Commission asked the developer to repay the money at the same time as interest of 10.7% higher than the interest rate provided for in the agreement, after taking into account the borrowing costs of the loan and the interest rate required by the haryana real estate (Regulation and Development) rules of 2017. It also noted that although the developer received the certificate of occupancy during the period of the complaint in court, as the delay lasted more than 2 years, and the buyer had already purchased another apartment, the developer could not impose ownership of the apartment on the buyer, » says Sandeep Shah, Partner, N.A Shah Associates LLP. The Supreme Court analyzed the agreement and compared the options available to the developer and the buyer with regard to the right of withdrawal/termination, the interest rate and the date on which the amount was to be repaid. . .