Dismissed

Agra Devp. Authority v. M/S Tanmay Nirman P Ltd.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2018FAPL/144/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These appeals by the Agra Development Authority challenged the trial court's decrees in suits filed by land purchasers. The purchasers were allotted commercial plots at auction but failed to deposit the 20% mandatory sum within 30 days. They relied on a 90-day grace period clause in the allotment letter. The appellate court held that this clause was valid and binding, and the proper remedy for def

What did the court decide?

Both appeals dismissed with costs. The lower court observations that alloted letters had 90 day grace period are affirmed.

Agra Devp. Authority Vs M/S Tanmay Nirman… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 144 of 2014 Appellant :- Agra Development Authority Respondent :- M/S Tanmay Nirman (P) Ltd. Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Om Counsel for Respondent :- Kuldeep Saxena,Vijit Saxena

¶4

2. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 145 of 2014 Appellant :- Agra Development Authority Respondent :- M/S Tanmay Project (P) Ltd. Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Om Counsel for Respondent :- Kuldeep Saxena,Vijit Saxena

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record.

¶8

These two appeals filed by defendant-appellant under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”) have arisen from judgment and decree dated 16.11.2013 and 30.11.2013 respectively, passed by Sri Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay, Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Agra in Original Suits No. 1223 of 2008 and 1224 of 2008. Though judgments have been rendered in both suits separately but except of difference of amount and plot number, rest of the facts and issues of law are common.

¶9

Since facts and issues in both suits are similar though relates to two different commercial plots, hence we may refer to plaint case in both matters separately but points for determination is common, therefore, are considering both matters together.

¶10

Original Suit No. 1223 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “First

¶11

¶12

Suit”) relates to commercial plot having area of 5125.07 sq. meter. There was an advertisement published for auction of commercial plots. Auction was held on 29.08.2008. Plaintiff-respondent was the highest bidder and his bid was for Rs. 11,645/- per square meter. As per terms of auction 20% of highest bid including earnest money was to be deposited within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter to highest bidder. Letter of allotment was issued by Agra Development Authority, Agra (hereinafter referred to as “ADA”) on 16.09.2008 communicating plaintiff-respondent that his bid for commercial plot measuring area 5125.07 sq. meter at the rate of Rs. 11,645/- per sq. meter was accepted and he was required to deposit 20% of total cost within one month. Letter dated 16.09.2008 stated that ar the rate of Rs. 11,645/- per sq. meter total amount payable for commercial plot of area 5125.07 sq. meters comes to Rs. 5,96,81,441/-. Further, 12% freehold charge to the tune of Rs. 71,61,773/- are also payable. Total comes to Rs. 6,68,43,213/-. Out of aforesaid amount Rs. 30 lacs were already paid by plaintiff-respondent at the time of auction as advance hence he was liable to pay further a sum of Rs. 89,36,288/-. The balance amount of Rs. 4,77,45,153/- was payable in 12 quarterly installments with 16% interest and each installment would be of 50,87,350/-. The letter aforesaid required plaintiff-respondent to pay Rs. 89,36,288/- besides other dues of Rs. 400/- by 15.10.2008. Plaintiff-respondent was also required to pay freehold charges of Rs. 71,61,773/- by 14.11.2008. It also said that in case of delay in payment of aforesaid amount he would have to0 pay late fee interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum.

¶13

Said letter of allotment was received by plaintiff-respondent on 18.09.2008 whereunder he was supposed to deposit Rs. 89,36,288/- by 15.10.2008 and freehold fee of Rs. 71,61,773/- by 14.11.2008. As per condition no. 2 of letter dated 16.09.2008 plaintiff-respondent could have deposited aforesaid amount alongwith interest within 90 days of letter of allotment, failing which allotment could have been cancelled.

¶14

¶15

Another letter was issued by Assistant Engineer (Estate), ADA on 16.10.2008 stating that plaintiff-respondent has contravened condition no. 7 of allotment letter dated 16.09.2008. Plaintiff-respondent met the said officer and requested to revoke letter dated 16.10.2008. However, another letter was issued by said officer on 21.10.2008, which was received by plaintiff-respondent on 24.10.2008, stating that plaintiff having failed to deposit Rs. 89,36,688/- has violated condition no. 7 of allotment letter, therefore, his allotment has been cancelled. Hence, suit was filed seeking declaration that letter dated 21.10.2008 be declared null and void and defendants be restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction from allotting property in dispute to another person.

¶16

Similarly in Suit No. 1224 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Second Suit”) dispute relates to commercial plot measuring area 1858 sq. meter, for which also auction was held on 29.08.2008 and plaintiffrespondent's bid for Rs. 12050/- per sq. meter. Being highest, bid was accepted by Vice Chairman, ADA vide order dated 03.09.2008. Vide letter dated 16.09.2008 Assistant Engineer (Estate) ADA required plaintiff-respondent to deposit Rs. 33,77,780/- by 15.10.2008 and freehold fee of Rs. 26,86,668/- by 14.11.2008. Aforesaid letter dated 16.09.2008 gave details of amount payable by plaintiff-respondent stating that at the rate of 12050/- per sq. meter for commercial plot area 1858 sq. meter, plaintiff-respondent was liable to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,23,88,900/- besides 12% freehold charge of Rs. 26,86,668/- was payable. Total comes to Rs. 2,50,75,568/-. Against aforesaid amount plaintiff-respondent had already deposited Rs. 11 lacs as advance before auction and 20% amount payable at the time of auction comes to Rs. 33,77,780/-. Balance amount of Rs. 1,79,11,120/was payable in 12 quarterly installments alongwith 16% annual interest and amount of each installment comes to Rs. 19,08,469/-. The letter also said that in case sum of Rs. 33,77,780/- alongwith other charges of Rs. 400/- not paid by due date, plaintiff-respondent would be liable to

¶17

¶18

pay interest for delayed payment at 19.5% per annum. As per condition no. 2 of allotment letter dated 16.09.2008 plaintiff-respondent could have deposit aforesaid amount alongwith interest within 90 days, failing which allotment could have been cancelled. Defendant-appellant issued letter dated 16.10.2008 stating that plaintiff has failed to comply with the condition no. 7 of letter of allotment which was contested by plaintiff-respondent but vide letter dated 21.10.2008 which was served upon plaintiff-respondent no. 24.10.2008 alleging that plaintiff failed to deposit Rs. 33,77,780/- and violated condition no. 7, cancelled allotment, hence Second Suit with similar relief as prayed in First Suit has been filed.

¶19

Defendant-appellant contested suit stating that since 20% amount was not deposited within 30 days of the date of issue of allotment letter, hence allotment was cancelled and it was in accordance with terms of auction, hence both suits are liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Issues framed in both suits are reproduced as under:

¶21

First Suit

¶22

^^1D;k izfroknh }kjk tkjh i= la[;k 2501@Mh@,,Q ¼ih½ 2008 fnukafdr 21-10-2008 okn i= esa fn;s x;s dkj.kksa ls 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\

¶23

1. Whether letter no 2501/D/AF (P) 2008 dated 21.10.2008 issued by the defendant is liable to be declared null and void on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?

¶24

2- D;k oknh us vkoaVu i= dh 'krksZa ds v/khu fu;fer :i ls ,oa le; ls fd'rksa dk Hkqxrku fd;k gS\

¶25

2. Whether the plaintiff has under the terms and conditions of allotment letter paid instalments in a regular and timely manner?

¶26

3- D;k izfroknh }kjk O;olkf;d IykV dk vkoaVu fu;eksa ds vuqlkj fujLr fd;k x;k gS\

¶27

3. Whether the allotment of the commercial plot has been cancelled by the defendant in accordance with allotment rules?

¶28

¶29

4- D;k nkok oknh vkchZVs'ku ,.M dksUlhfy;s'ku ,DV 1996 ls ckf/kr gS\

¶30

4. Whether the suit is barred by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

¶31

5- D;k nkok oknh fcca/ku ,oa ekSu Lohd`fr ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gS\

¶32

5. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of the estoppal and acquiescence ?

¶33

6- D;k nkok oknh iks"k.kh; gS\

¶34

6. Whether the suit is maintainable?

¶35

7- D;k oknh vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

¶36

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief?”

¶37

Second Suit

¶38

^^1D;k izfroknh }kjk tkjh i= la[;k 2500@Mh@,,Q ¼ih½ 2008 fnukafdr 21-10-2008 okn i= esa fn;s x;s dkj.kksa ls 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\

¶39

1. Whether letter no 2500/D/AF (P) 2008 dated 21.10.2008 issued by the defendant is liable to be declared null and void on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?

¶40

2- D;k oknh us vkoaVu i= dh 'krksZa ds v/khu fu;fer :i ls ,oa le; ls fd'rksa dk Hkqxrku fd;k gS\

¶41

2. Whether the plaintiff has under the terms and conditions of allotment letter paid instalments in a regular and timely manner?

¶42

3- D;k izfroknh }kjk O;olkf;d IykV dk vkoaVu fu;eksa ds vuqlkj fujLr fd;k x;k gS\

¶43

3. Whether the allotment of the commercial plot has been cancelled by the defendant in accordance with allotment rules?

¶44

4- D;k nkok oknh vkchZVs'ku ,.M dksUlhfy;s'ku ,DV 1996 ls ckf/kr gS\

¶45

4. Whether the suit is barred by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

¶46

5- D;k nkok oknh fcca/ku ,oa ekSu Lohd`fr ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gS\

¶47

5. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of the estoppal and acquiescence ?

¶48

¶49

6- D;k nkok oknh iks"k.kh; gS\

¶50

6. Whether the suit is maintainable?

¶51

7- D;k oknh vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

¶52

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief?”

¶53

(English translation by Court)

¶54

Trial Court answered Issue-4 in both suits holding that suit was not barred by provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1996”) hence maintainable. Thereafter Issues-1, 2 and 3, common in both suits, were taken together and answered in favour of plaintiff-respondent. Issue-5 in both suits are similar and answered against defendant-appellant. Issue-6, similar in both suits, was answered against defendant-appellant. Issue-7, similar in both suits, was answered in favour of plaintiff-respondent. Hence, both suits were decreed permitting plaintiff-respondent to pay 20% cost of plot alongwith freehold fee and interest at the rate of 19.50% within 90 days.

¶55

Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel appearing for appellant, contended before us that there was no clause in allotment letters permitting any relaxation and once condition of allotment was violated, defendant-appellant was within its right to cancel allotment and Court below in not appreciating conditions of auction has erred in law.

¶56

In both matters points for determination which need adjudication in these appeals are:

¶57

(I) Whether condition of 20% deposit within 30 days was mandatory and no relaxation was permissible by any authority of ADA?

¶58

(II) Whether plaintiff-respondent actually contravened condition No. 2 and 7 as claimed by defendant-appellant and, therefore, allotment was rightly cancelled by them and Court below has erred in fact and law in taking an other view of the

¶59

¶60

matter?

¶61

Since conditions of allotment/ auction in both matters are common, therefore, we are referring documents from First Suit. 13. Conditions of auction relevant for our purposes read by learned counsel for appellant, contained in Clauses 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 49 and 50, are reproduced as under:

¶62

^^4cksyh cksyus ls iwoZ uhykeh esa Hkkx ysus okys cksyhnkrk dks vkjf{kr ewY; dk 5 izfr'kr /kjksgj jkf'k uxn @ cSad MkQV @ is vkMZj ds :i esa vkxjk fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds i{k esa tek djkuh gksxhA mPpre cksyhnkrk ds lanHkZ esa ;g /kjksgj jkf'k mPpre cksyh ds 20 izf'kr esa lek;ksftr dj yh tk;sxhA mDr 20 izfr'kr dh vo'ks"k /kujkf'k lek;kstuksijkUr uhykeh dh frfFk ds ,d ekg ds vUnj tek djkuh gksxh A

¶63

4. Before taking part in the auction process, the bidder shall have to deposit earnest money being 5 percent of the reserved money in cash/by bank draft/through pay order in favour of Agra Development Authority . In case of the highest bidder, this earnest amount will be adjusted with 20 percent of the highest bid. After adjustment, the balance amount of the aforesaid 20 percent shall be deposited within a month from the date of the auctioneering.

¶64

7- cksyh lekIr gksus ij mPpre cksyhnkrk dks mPpre cksyh dh 20 izfr'kr /kujkf'k ¼/kjksgj jkf'k dks lek;ksftr djrs gq,½ uxn @ cSad MkQV@ is&vkMZj ds :i esa izkf/kdj.k dks"k esa vkoaVu i= tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls 30 fnu ¼,d ekg½ esa tek djkuh gksxh ;g /kujkf'k tek u djkus dh n'kk cksyhnkrk }kjk tek dh xbZ /kjksgj jkf'k izkf/kdj.k dks"k esa tCr dj yh tk;sxh rFkk ,slh n'kk esa f}rh; cksyhnkrk vFkok vU; cksyhnkrk] ftls ukhykeh lfefr vkns'k ns] ls muds }kjk yxk;h x;h mPpre cksyh dh 20 izfr'kr /kujkf'k tek djk yh tk;sxhA

¶65

7. The highest bidder, at the fall of the hammer, shall have to

¶66

¶67

deposit 20 percent amount of the highest bid (after adjusting the earnest amount) in cash/by bank draft/through pay order into the account of Agra Development Authority within 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter. In case of failure to deposit the amount, the earnest money deposited by the bidder shall be forfeited in the account of Agra Development Authority ; and in such a situation, the second highest bidder or any other bidder, whom the committee may instruct, shall have to deposit 20 percent amount of the highest bid amount made by him.

¶68

9- cksyhnkrk dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og uhyke dh frfFk ls 30 fnu ds vUnj Lo;a vkoaVu i= izkIr djsa] ;fn cksyhnkrk Lo;a vkdj i= izkIr ugha djrk gS] rks ,slh n'kk esa mDr i= ,oa mik/;{k] vkxjk fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk fu.kZ; cksyhnkrk ij rkehy ekuk tk;sxk vkSj rn~uqlkj gh ;fn cksyh Lohdr gksus dh n'kk esa cksyhnkrk dh ns; /kujkf'k vkfn tek djkus ,oa vkSipkfjdrk,Wa uhyke Lohdfr&i= esa nh x;h vof/k esa iw.kZ djus vkfn dh ck/;rk gksxhA

¶69

9. It will be responsibility of the bidder to obtain the allotment letter within 30 days from the date of auctioneering, and if the bidder does not receive the letter personally, then the decision of the Vice chairman of the Agra Development Authority as also the letter will be taken to have been served upon the bidder ; and accordingly, in case of approval of the bid, it will be binding on the bidder to deposit the due amount etc. and to fulfil formalities within the period mentioned in the bid approval letter.

¶70

10izkf/kdj.k ds }kjk uhyke dh tk jgh lEifRr dk vkcaVu QzhgksYM vk/kkj ij gksxk] ftlds fy, vkcaVh }kjk Hkwfe ds Lohd`r cksyh ewY; dh 12 izfr'kr /kujkf'k QzhgksYM 'kqYd ds :i esa vkoaVu frfFk ls 60 fnu ds vUnj vfrfjDr ns; gksxh A

¶71

10. The allotment of the property being sold by the authority

¶72

¶73

shall be on freehold basis, for which 12% of the amount of the approved bid of the land shall be payable by the allottee as freehold charges within 60 days from the date of allotment .

¶74

11cksyh Lohdkj gksus dh lwpuk tkjh gksus dh fnukad ls 30 fnu ds vanj lEcfU/kr i{k @ cksyhnkrk dks mPpre cksyh dh 20 izfr'kr /kujkf'k vFkkZr vkoaVu /kujkf'k rFkk 60 fnu ds vUnj 12 izfr'kr QzhgksYM 'kqYd dh /kujkf'k vkxjk fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks"k esa tek djkuh gksxh rFkk vo'ks"zk 80 izfr'kr /kujkf'k 3 o"kZ dh 12 leku =Sekfld fdLrksa esa 16 izfr'kr okf"kZd ;kSfxd ¼3 ekh foJke dky½ lfgr tek djkuh gksxhA izFke leku =Sekfld fdLr vkcaVu i= tkjh gksus ds vuqxkeh =Sekl ds izFke frfFk ls izkjEHk gksxhA fdlh Hkh fdLr dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku foyEc ls djus dh n'kk esa forFk vof/k ds fy, ¼16 izfr'kr $ 3-5 izfr'kr½ vFkkZr 19-50 izfr'kr okf"kZd foyEc C;kt ns; gksxhA

¶75

11. The concerned party/bidder shall have to deposit into the account of Agra Development Authority the 20% amount of the highest bid i.e. the allotment amount within 30 days and 12% freehold charges within 60 days from the date of notification of acceptance of the bid and the remaining 80% amount shall have to be deposited in 12 equated quarterly instalments of 3 years with 16% annual compound interest (on intervals of 3 months). The first equated instalment shall be due from the first date after expiry of 3 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. In case of default in payment of any instalment, 19.50% annual interest (16% + 3.5%) shall be payable for the period of delay.

¶76

12vkxjk fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk ekax i= esa lwfpr fd'rksa dh /kujkf'k ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ /kujkf'k ;fn fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa tek ugha djkbZ tkrh gS rks ,slh n'kk esa foyEc vof/k ds fy, 19-50 izfr'kr foyEc C;kt ns; gksxk] pkgs ;g /kujkf'k fdlh Hkh en esa ns; gksA

¶77

12. Apart from the amount of instalments notified in the demand note by Agra Development Authority, if any other

¶78

¶79

amount is not deposited within the specified period, 19.50% interest shall be payable for the delayed period regardless of the head that amount shall fall in.

¶80

49bu uhykeh dh 'krksZa ds vfrfjDr fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fdlh ckr ds jgrs gq, Hkh fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds fgr esa vU;Fkk fu.kZ; ysus dk vf/kdkj mik/;{k] vkxjk fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks gksxk rFkk mik/;{k] vkxjk fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk fu.kZ; cksyhnkrk @ vkcaVh dks ekU; gksxkA

¶81

49. Notwithstanding anything being there apart from the conditions of these bids, the Vice-chairman, Agra Development Authority shall, in special circumstances, have the right to otherwise decide in the interest of the Authority, and his/her decision shall be binding upon the bidder/allottee.

¶82

50bu uhykeh dh 'krksZa ds lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk fookn mRiUu gksrk gS rks og okn mik/;{k] vkxjk fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds }kjk r; fd;k tk;sxk vkSj bl lEcU/k esa bf.M;u vkchZV~s'ku ,.M dkUlhfy,'ku ,DV] 1996 ds varxZr fu.khZr fd;k tk;sxk vkSj mik/;{k] vkxjk fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk fu.kZ; vfUre o ekU; gksxkA

¶83

50. In case any dispute arises over the terms and conditions of the bid, it shall be decided by the Vice Chairman, Agra Development Authority in terms of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whose decision shall be final and binding.”

¶84

(English translation by Court)

¶85

In allotment letter as communicated to plaintiff-respondent terms and conditions were also mentioned and we may reproduce condition no. 2 and 7 of letter of allotment as under:

¶86

^^2foyEc C;kt lfgr /kujkf'k tek djkus gsrq vkcaVu i= tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls foyEcre vof/k 90 fnol gksxhA ;fn bl vof/k esa Hkh okafNr /kujkf'k foyEc C;kt lfgr tek ugha djk;h tkrh gS rc Hkw[k.M dk vkoaVu fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds fujLr djus dh dk;Zokgh dj nh tk;sxhA

¶87

2. The maximum delay period shall be 90 days from the date of

¶88

¶89

issuance of the allotment letter for depositing the amount with late payment interest. If the required amount with the late payment interest is not deposited even in the period, the proceeding to cancel the allotment of the plot shall be conducted.

¶90

7- dCtk lwpuk i= fuxZr gksus ds 30 fnu ds vUnj lEifRr dk dCtk izkIr djuk gksxkA ;fn dCtk fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa ugha izkIr djk;k tkrk gS vFkok dCtk ugha fy;k tkrk gS rc fd'rksa dh ns;rk fdlh izdkj izHkkfor ugha gksxkA

¶91

7. The possession of the property shall have to be obtained within 30 days from the date of issuance of letter. If possession is not handed over or obtained, the payment of instalments shall not be affected in anyway.” (English translation by Court)

¶92

It is admitted that auction was held on 29.08.2008. Plaintiffrespondent was highest bidder. Vice Chairman, ADA accepted highest bid vide order dated 03.09.2008. Thereafter letter demanding 20% amount was issued to plaintiff-respondent on 16.09.2008 and it was served upon it on 18.09.2008. As per condition no. 1 of allotment letter, requisite 20% amount was to be deposited by 15.10.2008. However, condition no. 2 of allotment letter has a deviation that alongwith delayed interest requisite amount from the date of allotment of letter can be deposited latest by 90 days and in case requisite amount alongwith delayed interest is not paid then allotment can be cancelled without any further notice.

¶93

Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel appearing for appellant contended that this condition no. 2 in allotment letter was not consistent with conditions of auction and it was not open for any authority of ADA to make any alteration in terms and conditions notified at the time of auction hence plaintiff-respondent could not have taken advantage of condition no. 2 of allotment letter and since it has failed to deposit requisite 20% amount by 15.10.2008, allotment was rightly cancelled.

¶94

¶95

We drew attention of learned counsel for appellant to condition no. 49 of auction which empowers Vice-Chairman, ADA to take any decision in interest of ADA notwithstanding the terms and conditions of auction and there is a declaration also that such decision of ViceChairman, ADA shall be binding on bidder/ allottee, whereupon learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that there is such power conferred upon Vice-Chairman, ADA but then contended that allottee in present case must have satisfied condition no. 4 of conditions of auction and cannot claim benefit of condition no. 2 of letter of allotment.

¶96

We find that there is no pleading or material placed on record to show that condition no. 2 in letter of allotment was mentioned unauthorizedly or illegally by ADA and that such condition was not incorporated in said letter under the orders of Vice-Chairman, ADA. Letter dated 16.09.2008 is a document issued by ADA and it is also not pleading of appellant that said letter was issued unauthorisedly, illegally and contains any condition which was beyond the authority of letter issuing authority.

¶97

In the written statement appellant sought to explain condition no. 2 of allotment letter in para 5 stating that it did not relate to bid money but relate to quarterly installments. But, when we read condition no. 2 of letter of allotment, said explanation is not borne out from a reading of said clause and when confronted learned counsel for appellant also could not dispute that condition no. 2 of allotment letter as drafted does not show that it was in respect of quarterly installment for the reason that condition no. 2 specifically talks of due amount payable from the date of issuance of allotment letter and not 12 quarterly installments which are referred to separately in clause 3 of letter of allotment. Condition no. 2 of letter of allotment also becomes more clear from condition no. 4 of letter of allotment which says that alongwith requisite deposit within 90 days from issue of allotment letter, non-judicial stamp

¶98

¶99

paper and passport size six photographs shall also be deposited for execution of agreement/ sale deed and possession of plot in question. Here also entire time given is 90 days. In these facts and circumstances, we answer point for determination no. 1 in favour of plaintiffrespondent and against defendant-appellant.

¶100

Now coming to second question, learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that cancellation of allotment was made following non-compliance of condition no. 4 of conditions of auction but if condition no. 2 of allotment letter is to be taken then it cannot be said that there was any violation. In view thereof, second point of determination is also answered against defendant-appellant.

¶101

No other point has been argued.

¶102

Both appeal lack merit. Dismissed accordingly with costs throughout.

¶103

Order Date :- 13.02.2018 AK

Agra Devp. Authority v. M/S Tanmay Nirman P Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agra Devp. Authority v. M/S Tanmay Nirman P Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohd. Zuber Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

managing director (j.n.n.u.r.m.) kanpur Vs godhan lal and 2 others