9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction as per the construction linked plan. The amount of booking and the first installment was also demanded and accepted by the respondent as being 20% of the consideration (computed for a flat of 1500 Sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 1250 per Sq ft.) for a flat measuring 1500 sq ft. It is thus, not open for the respondent to contend that it was not obliged to hand over a flat measuring 1500 Sq ft. A allotment letter for such flat was issued to the petitioner on 22.11.2007 and there has been no further communication by the respondent whereby the said allotment has been sought to be altered in any manner. On the contrary, respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the balance sum due immediately, by its letter dated 09.01.2012 - defence raised by the respondent that he is not liable to repay the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- to the petitioner is not credible - contention canvassed on behalf of the respondent is clearly without any merit and is ex-facie a sham defence raised only to avoid the obligation to refund the amount collected by the respondent - The petitioner would also be entitled to a reasonable interest as the sums paid by the petitioner have been utilised by the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner instead of the Navdeep Uppal. Accordingly, all rights, title and interest with respect to the said booking of a flat stood transferred in favour of the petitioner. The respondent company also issued a fresh receipt, bearing no. 9910 dated 07.02.2007, in favour of the petitioner confirming the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- as the booking amount. 5. The petitioner further paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the respondent company, by a cheque no. 715972 dated 06.02.2007 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, as the first installment and the respondent company also issued a receipt, bearing no.AS/CG-05/18/118 dated 14.02.2007, confirming the receipt of payment of Rs. 2,25,000/- as the first installment. In view of the first installment being made by the petitioner, the respondent company provisionally allotted a flat bearing no.302 on 3rd Floor, in Tower 'BEETA- 6' at Camellia Garden, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan vide allotment letter dated 22.11.2007. 6. On 09.01.2012, the respondent company issued another letter demanding the balance payment from the petitioner stating that petitioner could take possession of the flat in question and get the title deed registered. However, on visi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther contended that the respondent has already completed the construction of two towers and had made substantial progress in constructing three other towers. Accordingly, certain residential flats were available in the said project, the possession of which could be handed over to the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that although the project was approved by Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, yet the project suffered certain set backs on account of an attempt by the UIT to carve a 60 meter road through the plot of land on which the said project was being developed. 10. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation as the amount in question had been deposited with the respondent in 2007 and more than three years had elapsed since. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 12. At the outset, the contention that the claim of the petitioner, which is subject matter of the present petition, is barred by limitation is erroneous and is liable to be rejected. Admittedly, the respondent had received the sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- towards booking of a residential flat. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of 30 days, the petitioner would be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 20% P.A. 14. Admittedly, the respondent received the payment of the booking amount and the first installment (aggregating 20% of the consideration) and thereafter, issued the letter for allotment of Provisional Flat no. 302 on the 3rd floor measuring 1500 Sq. Ft. in Tower Beeta 6 at Camelia Garden, Bhiwadi . The respondent was obliged to carry out the construction and demand further payments according to the schedule as agreed. However, admittedly, the respondent did not carry out any construction in respect of Tower Beeta-6 and no further demands were made on the petitioner till 09.01.2012 The respondent invited the petitioner to make the balance payment immediately by its letter dated 09.01.2012. It is apparent that the said demand was completely unjustified as the respondent had not even commenced construction of Tower Beeta-6. The respondent had also not issued any other communication with regard to altering the previous provisional allotment. In the circumstances, the contention that cause of action arose in 2007 and is barred by limitation is wholly erroneous. The petitioner has mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft. It is thus, not open for the respondent to contend that it was not obliged to hand over a flat measuring 1500 Sq ft. A allotment letter for such flat was issued to the petitioner on 22.11.2007 and there has been no further communication by the respondent whereby the said allotment has been sought to be altered in any manner. On the contrary, respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the balance sum due immediately, by its letter dated 09.01.2012 17. In the given circumstances, the defence raised by the respondent that he is not liable to repay the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- to the petitioner is not credible. In my view, there is no justifiable reason or ground on which the respondent can resist the claim of the petitioner and withhold the payment of Rs. 3,75,000/-. The said amount had been paid by the petitioner for purchase of the flat, which the respondent is, admittedly, not in a position to deliver and consequently cannot withhold the amount paid by the petitioner. The contention that the allotment was only a provisional one and the respondent could amend the same also cannot be accepted as, admittedly, there is no flat measuring 1500 Sq. ft. that has been built and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
