Back
UMESH C.BANERJEE, J.JAGANNADHA RAO
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Skipper Construction Company Private LTD. – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The statutory charge created under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act is enforceable against the seller and all persons claiming under him, and it is a statutory charge that differs from a contractual charge (!) (!) .
The buyer’s charge under Section 55(6)(b) is a statutory right, and it is available unless the buyer has improperly declined to accept delivery of the property. This charge applies to the purchase money and interest on such amount, and it is enforceable against the seller and all claimants under him (!) (!) .
When the property on which the charge is created is converted into another form, the charge extends to the substituted security, including money or other property into which the original is converted (!) (!) .
The period of limitation for enforcing the statutory charge under Section 55(6)(b) is 12 years from the date the amount becomes due. This period remains the same even if enforcement is sought against substituted security (!) (!) .
Interest on the purchase money is payable from the date of payment until the date of delivery of the property or until the sale deed is executed, unless the contract states otherwise. However, if the contract is found to be fraudulent, reliance on contractual clauses that deny interest is not permissible (!) (!) (!) .
A finding of fraud by the court affects the enforceability of contractual terms that deny interest, especially when the fraud involves the collection of amounts from more buyers than there are available units, which was established as fraudulent conduct (!) (!) (!) .
The period of limitation for claims to enforce the statutory charge is 12 years from when the amount becomes due, aligning with the provisions of the Limitation Act (!) (!) .
The contractual stipulation that interest will not be payable in case of transaction failure cannot be relied upon by a seller if the court has established that the transaction involved fraud. The court’s earlier finding of fraud overrides such contractual clauses (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
JUDGMENT
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-On May 6th, 1996 this Court delivered judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.1. Thereafter, various other issues regarding the Skipper group of Companies continued to pose serious issues of law and fact. Sometimes, it looked like a maze which could baffle lawyers and courts alike. More claims with regard to Jhandevalan property which was the subject matter of the above case, - of persons who claimed to be purchasers of space proposed to be built at Jhandevalan came before us. In addition, claims of similar purchasers of property at Barakhamba Road and also in regard to Technology Park, came before us. In this judgment, we propose to deal with certain issues concerning the Jhandevalan property which have remained undecided or not decided finally in the earlier orders of this Court.
2. In order to understand how these issues arise, it is necessary to go back (A) to the long history of events set out in the above said judgment and (B) to the subsequent events. In Part (C) we shall deal with four issues which have crystallised. In the rest of this judgment Delhi Development Authority is described as DDA and Skipper Const
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
