9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept the allotment. 2. The aforesaid question arises on these facts. The appellant proposed to allot land to about 260 Co-operative Group Housing Societies in Dwaraka Phase -1, so also to about 60 such Societies in Narela. When the proposal was first, made on 1.10.90, the cost was fixed at ₹ 975/- per sq.mtr. for Dwaraka land and ₹ 950/- for Narela land. The Societies interested in the allotment land were require to deposit ₹ 5 lakhs as earnest money and to formarally apply for allotment On the interested Societies accepting the offer, formal allotment was made by communication of the appellant dated25.1.1991. Before possession of the land came to be delivered, the appellant by its communication dated 3- 11-92 stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant, has confined has submission to that part of the direction of the High Court which is relatable to the refund of earnest money. Learned counsel contends that the respondents having had accepted the allotment on the conditions mentioned in the communications dated 25.1.91 which had visualised enhancement of the rate, and the enhancement having been regarded as reasonable by the High Court, the direction to refund the earnest money is not in accordance with the law for two reasons. First, the very conception of earnest money is that in case the contract goes off, the same can be forfeited. Secondly, the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal) of Developed Nazul Land) Amendment Rules, 1981, which were notified on 11. 11. 91, having provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offer given on 3.11.92 in which mention was made about the rate of premium being ₹ 1650.65. The appellant is, therefore, not entitled, according to to the learned counsel, to forfeit the earnest money, as, no such money had been deposited after this date in token of acceptance of the proposal. 7. Shri Jaitley counters this statement by urging that the proposal to allot land as contained in the communication of 3.11.92 cannot be read dehors what had been mentioned in the allotment after dated 25.1.91 or for that matter the offer contained in the communication dated 1. 10. 90. This is brought home by drawing our attention to what has been stated in para 3 of the offer dated 3.11.92 in which, while calculating the entire amount p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
