Dismissed

Dr. Yashpal Bali v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2021WRIC/22599/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a demand notice from 2007 upheld in an order dated 2021. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the delay of 14 years without approach to consumer forums rendered the applicant ineligible for the Apex Court's precedent in Shakumbari Devi and that no ground for interference existed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; demand notice dated 29.01.2007 and order dated 16.03.2021 remain operative.

Dr. Yashpal Bali Vs Ghaziabad Development… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22599 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Yashpal Bali

¶4

Respondent :- Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Srivastava,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Ravi Prakash Pandey,Arun Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶7

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the demand notice dated 2.01.2007 so as the impugned order dated 16.03.2021.

¶8

The facts available on record shows allotment of chamber to the petitioner by Ghaziabad Development Authority on certain terms and conditions. The allotment letter was executed by the parties. The petitioner paid the initial amount of allotment of the chamber. The additional amount was demanded pursuant to clause 3 of the agreement which is reproduced herein:

¶9

"3. It is further made clear between the parties that the Second party will pay to the Authority on demand by it and further amount that may on final calculation of costs of the professional chamber put up therein may be demanded by the authority from second party and the vice chairman of the Authority would be the sole judge of the question as to what further amount is due from the second party on such final calculation of its Vice Chairman in respect thereof.

¶10

Provided that the second party will have the option to pay the entire amount in lumpsum at the time of payment of first or subsequent instalment to the authority in which case it shall not be liable to pay interest thereon as included in the amount of instalment stated above.

¶11

Provided that in case of default 21% per annum interest shall be charged for the defaulted period. However, rebate of 3% per annum shall be given in case the payment is made within time on due dates."

¶12

The paragraph quoted above reveals agreement between the parties for demand of further amount on final calculation of the cost of professional chamber and accordingly the demand of additional amount was raised on 29.01.2007. The demand aforesaid was not challenged by the petitioner at any point of

¶13

time before passing of the order dated 16.03.2021. The petitioner has otherwise taken the possession of the chamber and enjoying it.

¶14

Learned counsel submits that Apex Court passed an order in favour of similarly placed and accordingly prayer was made for application of the order of the Apex Court even on the petitioner.

¶15

We have perused the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Appeal filed by Shakumbari Devi in Civil Appeal No. 3254 of 2015 ( Shakumbari Devi vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority ). The directions of the Apex Court are applicable on the appellant therein. The SLP was filed after the order by the District Consumer Forum followed by the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'National Commission'). It was after the adjudication made by the District Consumer Forum and National Commission whereas in the instant case, the petitioner did not approach the District Consumer Forum or the National Commission to have adjudication of the dispute.

¶16

In any case, parity has been claimed pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court. The District Consumer Forum/State Commission found that demand of amount on Alok Singh was raised with delay and without justification which is not the controversy in this case. Apart from the aforesaid, the demand of the final amount has been made in consonance to para 3 of the agreement, thus, we do not find any illegality therein. The initial amount was not the final amount otherwise, there was no need to insert para 3 in the agreement to make it clear that final amount would be demanded after calculation of the cost of professional chamber.

¶17

We are not aware as to whether para 3 of the agreement was brought to the notice of the State or National Commission for

¶18

adjudication of the issue. It is also not made clear that para 3 of the agreement, if brought to the notice of the Tribunal, how it has been dealt with. The judgment of the Apex Court has not been applied by the respondents as he was not the appellant and otherwise we do not find that the judgment of the Apex Court can be applied without adjudication of the factual issue which in the case of Shakumbari Devi was made by the District/State Consumer Forum followed by National Commission. The petitioner has directly landed in the Court and that too to challenge the demand of year 2007. It is after a period of 14 years without justification of delay and the order dated 16.03.2021 does not enlarge the period to approach this Court. For all the reasons given above, we do not find a ground to cause interference in the impugned order and the demand notice dated 29.01.2007.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.10.2021 Madhurima

¶21

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, A.C.J. )

Dr. Yashpal Bali v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Yashpal Bali v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S H.S.M Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Green Tribunal and 6 Others

Satya Prakash Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt.Kallu Devi @ Kallo Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Up

Kumar Vinay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Ramwati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others