Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - 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

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
Property Matters

“Family Feud Over Property: Kamla Nagar Goes to One Side, Malcha Marg to the Other” – The court analyzed the Registration Act’s requirements for documenting transfers of property rights and concluded that the lack of registration indicated no settlement existed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment regarding the Kamla Nagar property, restoring the Trial Court’s decision and confirming the appellants’ sole ownership – The decision regarding the Malcha Marg property was upheld, leaving it exclusively to the respondents.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Property Dispute – The case involves disputes over property ownership after the original owner, ‘S’, passed away in 1947 – The Court found no foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plaintiff’s claim, as the necessary facts were not adequately pleaded or proved – The appeals were dismissed, with the Court upholding the original decrees and granting the appellant time until March 31, 2025, to vacate the property, subject to certain conditions.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw