Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Property Matters

Allotment of plot – Public auction – Defaults and failure to pay installment/balance payment – Earnest money paid by the respondent 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, will be refunded to him with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 01.01.2001

Bysclaw

Oct 28, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant

Vs.

S. PARAMJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent

( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. …of 2023; (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4050 of 2023) with Civil Appeal No. …of 2023; (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9019 of 2023)

Decided on : 13-10-2023

Allotment of plot – Public auction – Defaults and failure to pay installment/balance payment – Earnest money paid by the respondent 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, will be refunded to him with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 01.01.2001

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Advocate, Ms. Anisha Jain, Advocate, Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocate and Mrs. Ranjana Ahuja, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sumit Singh Somria, Advocate, Mr. P.D. Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER

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

1. Leave granted.

2. 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.

3. 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 accepted. By letter of intent dated 26.05.1999, the JDA had called upon respondent no. 1 – S. Paramjeet Singh to deposit 50% of the premium within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter of 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The appellant – JDA had conducted the fresh auction and had received a bid of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs only) from respondent no. 2 – Vivek Mahajan.

8. 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.

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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

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

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

15. Leave granted.

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

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

By sclaw

Related Post

C P C Power of Attorney Property Matters

Power Of Attorney Holders Cannot Give Evidence About Facts Which Are Within Personal Knowledge Of Persons They Represent

May 26, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Joint Family Property Matrimonial Property Matters

Suit for Partition – The Court found that ‘C’ remarriage extinguished her rights to her first husband’s property, and she could not pass on any title to the plaintiff – The Court applied the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, and relevant case law to determine the impact of Chiruthey’s remarriage on her property rights – The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff could not inherit the property through ‘C’, as her rights were nullified upon remarriage, and the deeds did not confer valid title.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw