Allowed

Jammu Development Authority v. S. Paramjeet Singh

Supreme Court13 Oct 20232023 INSC 9222023 INSC 922

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal filed by the Jammu Development Authority regarding a property auction. The Court set aside the High Court judgment that favored a defaulting allottee who failed to pay the balance premium and upheld the allotment. Instead, the plot was directed to be re-auctioned, and specific refund and interest directions were issued to both defaulting respondents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment is set aside. Original Writ Petition dismissed. Plot to be re-auctioned. Earnest money of defaulting allottee forfeited. Special refund directions issued to both respondents.

Jammu Development Authority versus S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Supreme Court (2023)

NON REPORTABLE

2023 INSC 922

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4050 of 2023) JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS S. PARAMJEET SINGH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

¶7

WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9019 of 2023)

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 4050/2023

¶11

Leave granted.

¶12

This appeal by the Jammu Development Authority¹ takes exception to the judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu.

¶13

Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh had participated in a public auction held on 12.04.1999. His bid of Rs.8,30,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs thirty thousand only) for purchase of plot no. 244, Sector 1/Sector 1A, Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu² , was

¶14

accepted. By letter of intent dated 26.05.1999, the JDA had called Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2023.10.18 upon respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh to deposit 50% of the 10:34:18 IST Reason:

¶15

premium within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter of

¶16

1 For short, “JDA”.

¶17

2 For short, “Subject Property”.

¶18

¶19

intent, and the balance 50% within 60 days thereafter. In case of default beyond six months, interest at the rate of 18% per annum would be charged. Further, on failure, the allotment shall be cancelled, and the earnest money and the first installment shall stand forfeited.

¶20

Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh deposited 50% of the premium of Rs.4,15,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifteen thousand only) within 30 days after issue of the letter of intent dated 26.05.1999. He did not pay the balance 50% of the premium.

¶21

It is the case of the appellant – JDA that a number of letters were written to Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh to pay the second installment/balance payment, to which Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh did not respond. Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh denies having received these letters/communications. We have, however, one letter written by Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh, dated 23.05.2001, which refers to the communication dated 02.05.2001³ , wherein he was asked to make the balance payment of 50% of the premium.

¶22

Balance 50% of the premium amount was not deposited till 2010.Earlier JDA had cancelled the allotment. Accordingly, the appellant – JDA issued an advertisement on 09.12.2010 for a fresh auction, which was published/advertised on 11.12.2010 in newspapers. Immediately thereupon, Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh filed Original Writ Petition (OWP) no. 1483/2010 before the High Court in December 2010.

¶23

The appellant – JDA had conducted the fresh auction and had

¶24

3 Letter No. JDA/T.N. 244/114 dated 02.05.2001.

¶25

¶26

received a bid of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs only) from respondent no. 2 – Vivek Mahajan.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid facts, we fail to understand how Original Writ Petition (OWP) no. 1483/2010 was allowed and LPA No. 58/2022 filed by the JDA was dismissed, with the observation that the allotment in favour of Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh survives and should be acted upon. The defaults and failure to pay the consideration on the part of Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh are apparent and do not even warrant elucidation.

¶28

Original Writ Petition (OWP) no. 1483/2010 preferred by S. Paramjeet Singh should have been dismissed.

¶29

It is pointed out to us that respondent no. 2 – Vivek Mahajan had deposited an earnest money of Rs.2,71,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy one thousand only). The balance money has not been paid. We are also of the opinion that given the time lapse, the plot should be re-auctioned.

¶30

To balance out the equities, we direct that respondent no. 2 – Vivek Mahajan will be refunded Rs.2,71,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy one thousand only) along with simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

¶31

Earnest money paid by the respondent no. 1 - S. Parmjeet Singh will be forfeited and will not be refunded. Rs.4,15,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifteen thousand only), less the earnest money deposited by Respondent no. 1 - S. Paramjeet Singh, will be refunded to him with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 01.01.2001.

¶32

The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed

¶33

¶34

and disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶35

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 9019 of 2023 Leave granted.

¶36

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed today in civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) no. 4050/2023.

¶37

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶38

.................J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

¶39

.................J. (S.V.N. BHATTI)

¶40

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 13, 2023.

Jammu Development Authority v. S. Paramjeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu Development Authority v. S. Paramjeet Singh

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

Ram Kishan versus Daya Nand(D)Thr. Lrs

Mukesh Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh

Shanta Rani versus Nasib Kaur

Nikesh Kumar versus Suman Devi

Rajeswari versus Union of India

The State of Jharkhand versus Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd.