0

In a contract, the party who suffers by any such breach is entitled to receive compensation for any loss which naturally arises: High Court Of New Delhi

Appellant had approached the learned Single Judge seeking a direction to the Respondent to extend the time for depositing 75% of LPA 419/2021 the balance amount and issue a fresh Demand Notice, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a Division bench judge HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH, in the matter JITIN GARG V. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY dealt with an issue mentioned above.

In this case, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on a short ground that the DDA by its Circular dated 02.12.2020 had granted further time to all similarly placed persons to make payments by 31.12.2020, and also appellant did not take the benefit and make payment and instead chose to file a writ petition on 13.11.2020.

The Respondent had issued an online advertisement for the e-auction of some residential properties on 10.08.2019. Appellant deposited 5% EMD i.e. Rs.7,00,859/- on 06.09.2019, On 11.09.2019, during the online bidding, Appellant emerged as the highest bidder for the plot in question and the total value of the plot was Rs.2,41,66,000/-.

According to the Appellant, the balance payment could not be done because of the lockdown which was imposed by the Government on 23.03.2020 on account of Pandemic Covid-19. On 30.03.2020, Respondent issued a Public Notice for extension of time for making payment under different Housing Schemes, but there was no clarity of the notice related to the plot of the Appellant. However, Appellant was unable to arrange for the loan due to the Pandemic and the last date under the Demand Letter expired.

The learned counsel for the Appellant contends that a limited relief was sought by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge for grant of extension of time so that the balance amount could be deposited as the Appellant had already deposited 25% towards the cost of the plot. It was argued that the payment could not be made within the time stipulated in the Demand Letter on account of Pandemic Covid-19.

It was mentioned that the appellant made some representations to the DDA seeking extension of time but being unsuccessful in getting the relief, he preferred a writ petition being W.P. (C) No.10331/2020 on 13.11.2020 seeking extension of time to deposit remaining 75% of the value of the plot.

Learned Single Judge had also observed in the impugned order that the Circular dated 02.12.2020 granting time for payment up to 31.12.2020, was duly notified on the DDA’s website and many persons have reaped the benefit of the extension. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition.

Later it was decided that if the appellant ought to have known that if a plot was being auctioned and he succeeded as being the highest bidder, he was bound to deposit not only the initial 25% but also the balance 75% within the period stipulated in the Demand Letter. Not only did the Appellant not deposit the 75% within the stipulated schedule but also failed to pay during the extended period while many other similarly placed reaped the benefit of time extension.

And also if the Appellant chose to remain silent and not act vigilantly or promptly, despite the Circular of the DDA being on the website, he must suffer for the laxity was also mentioned.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that- “We find no infirmity or error in the impugned judgment. LPA 419/2021 Page 7 of 7 . There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application”.

Click here for judgement

Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira BS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat