9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so pay a nominal interest on the amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- which has been paid. Hence, the interest for the said amount is directed to be paid at Rs. 75,000/-. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner is yet dissatisfied and would submit that the Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, therefore, the present order. This Court is satisfied that the respondent is able to meet its commitments and it would not be just and fair to wind up the respondent. Recording the undertaking of the respondent that the remaining amount shall be repaid as proposed in the memo dated 28.03.2014 along with an additional sum of Rs. 75,000/- as interest towards Rs. 31,00,000/- that has already been paid, the petition is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 apartments in six blocks with basement, ground and nine upper floors. Pursuant to the advertisement by the respondent and on the request of the petitioner for allotment of residential flat proposed as No.703 in 'E' Block measuring 1690 sq.ft. with amenities along with undivided share of 703 sq.ft. in the land and one car parking space in the basement floor for a total consideration of Rs. 55,83,000/-, the petitioner is said to have issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- dated 18.12.2006 in favour of the respondent, being the initial booking deposit. On receipt of the above initial booking deposit, Skyline Construction had allotted the aforesaid flat through its letter dated 27.12.2006, pursuant to which the petitioner entered into an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 5,45,096/- 861 08/03/07 07/03/07 3,00,654/- 157 05/07/07 30/06/07 5,58,300/- 27/07/07 2,79,150/- 259 14/08/07 10/08/07 2,79,150/- 311 03/09/07 31/08/07 2,79,150/- 375 03/10/07 29/09/07 2,79,150/- 486 02/11/07 31/10/07 2,79,150/- 877 19/03/08 29/02/08 5,58,300/- 878 19/03/08 18/03/08 5,59,554/- 030 21/04/08 21/04/08 2,79,150/- 134 23/04/08 22/04/08 2,79,150/- In terms of Clause 5 of the Construction Agreement, the respondent had undertaken to complete and deliver possession of the Apartment on or before 30.04.2008 with a grace period of twelve months and even beyond the said period, the respondent not having completed the same, the petitioner claims that the respondent would not be in a position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the date of completion would stand extended in the event of such circumstances. In terms of Clause 5.3 of the agreement, it is also agreed between the parties that in the event of delay, the contract would not be subject to termination, but would only attract damages which were to be quantified. Further, though the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 50,25,954/-, the respondent claimed that there was a balance of Rs. 11,68,600/-, since the total cost of the Apartment was Rs. 61,94,554/-. This was exclusive of legal and documentation expenses, BWSSB and KEB deposits, registration and khatha expenses and applicable taxes. Therefore, there was no crystallized debt which could be claimed as payable to the petitioner and hence, he claims that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mere repayment of some amounts and the assurance of paying the remaining amount in trickles, would not establish the case of the respondent that it is able to meet its commitments, and it would still be a company which is unable to repay its debts and ought to be wound up. 6. Given the circumstances that there is now a proposal by the respondent to repay the remaining amount with interest thereon at 10%, it would be appropriate if the respondent could also pay a nominal interest on the amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- which has been paid. Hence, the interest for the said amount is directed to be paid at Rs. 75,000/-. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner is yet dissatisfied and would submit that the Court may proceed to pass appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
