FACTS- In the instant case, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) made a new interpretation of the contract entered by the buyer and seller of the apartment. The contract specifically stated that the buyer would have an option of election to end the contract and claim back the refund of consideration paid, in the event that the seller is not able to provide an 'occupation certificate' before the expiry of the grace period of one year. Despite the seller's failure to grant an 'occupation certificate' within the grace period, the NCDRC rejected the buyer's right to terminate the contract and to get the refund of the consideration amount already paid to the seller for the purchase of the apartment.

ISSUE- whether the NCDRC can rewrite the terms and conditions of the covenants binding on the parties or make a new contract based on its interpretation.

OBSERVATION- Supreme Court observed that it is not for the court to rewrite or make a new contract, and it is incumbent upon the courts to abide by the terms and conditions laid down in the contract which is binding on the parties to the contract. The Bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar observed that once the contract in written form is entered by the parties, then the same would be binding upon them, and it is not open for the court to rewrite or make a new contract by giving a new interpretation to the contract.