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

1996 Supreme(SC) 955

1996(4) Supreme 142
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
H.U.D.A. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Kewal Krishan Goel & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7849 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25981/95)
with
Civil Appeal No. 7850 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28081/95)
and
Civil Appeal No. 7851 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3360/96)
All decided on 9-5-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a land is allotted and the allottee 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, the allotting authority is entitled to forfeit the earnest money which had been deposited with the application form and not the 10% of the amount deposited.

Headnote:Housing-Allotment of residential plots-Allottee required to deposit 10% of tentative price of land as earnest money-Where allottee deposits additional instalments and thereafter intimates authority that he will not pay up the balance amount-Request for refund of money deposited-Would the authority be justified in forfeiting the earnest money deposited alongwith the application form ?-(Yes)-Balance amount may be refunded to allottee-Concept of earnest money .

       Held : Under the allotment in question an allotee was required to deposit 10% of the tentative price of the land as earnest money which is given to bind the contract and the said earnest money could be forfeited by the authority in case the allotee does not communicate the letter of refusal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the allotment order. (Para 7)

       Further held that where the allottee accepts the allotment and indicates the same within the stipulated period and makes additional deposits on instalment basis and thereafter intimates the authority that he will not be in a position to pay up the balance amount and makes a request for refund of the money deposited, would the authority be justified in forfeiting the earnest money which had been deposited along with the application form? The answer to this question depends upon the basis concept of earnest . (Para 8)

       The earnest money is a part of the purchase price when the transaction gets through and the same is forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the default or failure on the part of the vendee. (Para 9)

       The allotee having accepted the allotment and having made some payment on instalment basis then made the request to surrender the land, has committed default on his part and therefore the competent authority would be fully justified in forfeiting the earnest money which had been deposited and not the 10% of the amount deposited as held by the High Court. The High Court was totally in error in issuing the direction in question on the ground that the respondents were not in a position to deliver the possession of the land to the allotee. It may be stated that in the letter of allotment no period was stipulated within which the possession of the land was to be delivered. The land in question was required to be developed and then to be delivered and in absence of any period in the letter of allotment, it was required to be delivered within a reasonable period. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the reasonability had lapsed particularly when the allotees had not paid up the entire instalment due and merely paid a part thereof. (Para 10)

       

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 allotment that had been issued by the Estate Officer of the Haryana Urban Development Authority to the allotee, it was indicated that if the allotee refuses to accept the allotment then the same may be communicated within 30 days from the date of allotment letter failing which the allotment would stand cancelled and the earnest money deposited shall be forfeited to the authority and the allotee can have no claim for damages. It was also stipulated in the letter of allotment that the balance amount of the tentative price indicated in the letter of allotment could be deposited either in lump sum without any interest within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or on 6 annual instalments and each instalment would be recoverable together with interest at 15%. On receipt of the letter of allotments the allotees who are the respondents in these appeals accepted the allotment and made the initial deposits as required and thereafter chose to deposit the balance amount in instalment. Each of the allotee-respondent did deposit some instalment and thereafter intimated the authority that they will not be in a position to take the land allotted and requested for refund of the amount. In some cases the authority replied that their prayer for cancellation of allotment cannot be acceded to and in some other cases even before any consideration made by the authority to the request of the allotees, the allottees approached the High Court. The High Court having directed the authority to refund the balance after deducting 10% of the amount deposited by each of the allotee, the Haryana Urban Development Authority as well as the State of Haryana have preferred these appeals.

5. Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in view of the fact that the allotee was required to deposit 10% of the purchase price as earnest money while the application for allotment was made and having accepted the allotment in question with the terms and conditions stipulated in the letter of allotment, when the transaction falls through by reasons of default or failure on the part of the allottee, the authority would be entitled to forfeit the entire earnest money deposited and not the 10% of the amount deposited till then as directed by the High Court. Mr. Jaitley contends earnest represents a guarantee that the contract will be fulfilled and is given to bind the contract and therefore the same is forfeited when the transaction falls through on account of failure on the part of the purchaser. According to the learned counsel in view of the specific clauses of the letter of allotment the High Court committed gross error in directing forfeit of only 10% of the amount deposited. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel ap


















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 Back to top