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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1066

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Kashmir Chand – Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Haryana – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

Admittedly, the plot was sold in an open auction held in July, 1971 for a sum of Rs. 46,000/-. The appellant has paid only 11,500/-. He was due of the balance sum of Rs. 34,500/-. In terms of the auction, he had not complied with the payment for well over 21 years. Consequently, he was demanded payment of a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- which he defaulted to pay. When allotment was sought to be cancelled he calling that action in question, filed a writ petition to the High Court. Pending writ petition, the High Court passed an order in a civil miscellaneous case. Therein the appellant had asserted that he had deposited the sum of Rs. 34,500/- on September 21, 1992. The Court found that in case the said amount of Rs. 34,500/- was deposited, as contended by the appellant, the balance amount of Rs. 3,43,500 was directed to be deposited but he had not done. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and an appeal in the impugned order in MPA No. 355/93 dated 19th August, 1993, the order of the learned single Judge was confirmed.

3. Though time was taken for filing the counter, the same was not filed by the respondents. It is s



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