SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 955

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
H. U. D. A. : H. U. D. A. : State Of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Kewal Krishan Goel: Ravinder Nath Sharma: Shamsher Singh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.- Leave granted.

2. In these three appeals directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court the common question of law is involved and as such are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The short question that arises for consideration is, where a land is allotted and the allotee deposits some instalments but thereafter intimates the authority about his incapacity to pay up the balance instalments and requests for refund of the money paid, is the allotting authority entitled to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the allottee or could be only entitled to forfeit 10% of the total amount deposited by the allotee till the request is made as directed by the High Court?

4. Haryana Urban Development Authority issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of residential plots at Karnal. The price of plots was different for different size. In accordance with the advertisement 10% of the total price was required to be deposited along with the application form as earnest money and where the plot was a preferential one an extra price of 10% of the total price was required to be deposited. In the letter of allot



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top