Partly allowed

The Administrator Markle Committee v. Bishambar Dayal

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2008RSA/617/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In RSA 617 of 2002, a single-judge bench condoned a 613-day delay in restoring an appeal. The appeal challenging forfeiture of earnest money is dismissed as courts below found no infirmity in their decision regarding refund policy.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 613 days is condoned; the appeal is restored. The appeal challenging forfeiture is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000.

The Administrator Markle Committee Vs Bishambar… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

RSA No.617 of 2002

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM No. 9322-C of 2008 and RSA No. 617 of 2002 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: December 11, 2008

¶6

The Administrator/Chairman, Market Committee

¶7

...... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Bishambar Dayal ...... Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶11

Present: Mr. Vivek Lamba, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Ajay Tewari, J.

RSA No.617 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶21

CM No. 9322-C of 2008 & RSA No. 617 of 2002 (O&M)

¶22

Date of Decision: December 11, 2008

¶23

The Administrator/Chairman,Market Committee

...... Appellant

Versus

Bishambar Dayal

...... Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶29

Present: Mr. Vivek Lamba, Advocate for the appellant.

¶30

Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

¶31

¶32

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶33

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶34

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶35

Ajay Tewari, J.

¶36

CM No. 9322-C of 2008

¶37

Reply has been filed.

¶38

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is

¶39

allowed. The delay of 613 days in filing the application for restoration of appeal is condoned. The appeal is restored to its original number.

¶40

RSA No. 617 of 2002

¶41

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of

¶42

the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent challenging the forfeiture of his earnest money.

¶43

RSA No.617 of 2002

¶44

¶45

Both the Courts have found that the respondent purchased the shop in an open auction held on 25.11.90, allotment letter was issued on 19.3.1991 and by letter dated 29.8.91 respondent prayed for surrender of the plot and refund of his earnest money after making necessary deductions. The Courts found that as per policy Ex.PA the Board had taken a decision that surrender of allotted properties could be permitted after deducting 10% if the total bid. The departmental witness admitted that in several other cases such refunds had been given by the Board.

¶46

In this view of the matter no infirmity can be found with the view taken by the learned Courts below. In the circumstances the questions proposed do not arise in the present appeal and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

¶47

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶48

December 11, 2008 sunita

The Administrator Markle Committee v. Bishambar Dayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Administrator Markle Committee v. Bishambar Dayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Kaur Vs Satpal Singh

Ajmer Singh Dhillon Vs Fci etc.

Gurdev Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs Kirpal Singh

Kulwant Kaur Vs Sinder Singh

Municipala Committee Amloh Vs Kahla Singh etc.