SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
SANJAY SINGH AND ANOTHER - Appellants
Vs.
CENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1928 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 24690 of 2018)
Decided On : 21-02-2019
Facts of Case:
Appellants had booked a residential plot whereupon a villa was to be constructed by respondent in a project. Dispute erupted when appellants received demand notice for payment of balance consideration of Rs.5,13,850/- together with interest @ 24%. Amount of Rs.5,13,850/-was tendered by appellants but cheque was returned by respondent.
Findings of Court:
Delay to tune of 721 days was condoned by High Court when there was no satisfactory explanation. In our view, there was gross negligence on part of respondent and explanation offered in support of prayer for condonation does not appear to be correct. This is evident from fact that no effective steps were taken to pursue the complaint which was lodged against then Advocate.
Result : Appeal allowed with directions.
JUDGMENT :
Uday Umesh Lalit. J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Regular First Appeal No. 876 of 2016.
3. The appellants had booked a residential plot whereupon a villa was to be constructed by the respondent in a project called "Cloud-9 Hill Town" in village Khabrar, Ramgarh, District-Nainital, Uttarakhand. An agreement in that behalf was executed on 14.04.2004 in terms of which the total consideration for the villa was Rs. 15,65,000/- and the villa was to be completed within 30 months. Later, sale deed in respect of the plot was registered in favour of the appellants on 14.05.2004. According to the appellants they had secured loan to the tune of Rs. 13,30,000/- from a bank and had paid all the installments as and when they were due. On or about 03.10.2007 the appellants received a demand notice for payment of balance consideration of Rs. 5,13,850/- together with interest @ 24%. The amount of Rs. 5,13,850/-was tendered by the appellants on 12.10.2007 but the cheque was returned by the respondent.
4. Thereafter, a statement of accounts was prepared by the respondent which reflected outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 5,13,850/- towards principal sum and interest amounting to Rs. 3,61,460/-, the total being Rs. 8,73,556/-. Soon thereafter, the respondent filed a Summary Suit for recovery of said amount of Rs. 8,73,556/-. The Suit was registered as CS No. 431/14/2008 on the file of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, New Delhi.
5. A Consumer Complaint was filed by the appellants being CC/110/2008 against the respondent submitting that though the outstanding amount was tendered by the appellants on 18.10.2007, the respondent refused to accept the same unless the principal sum was accompanied with interest @ 24% and that the project was not completed in time as a result of which the appellants were put to loss. It was prayed that the respondent be asked to deliver possession of villa along with all the facilities and accept the balance payment of Rs. 5,13,850/-. The respondent contested the claim and submitted that the appellants never paid instalments as per schedule; that there was no delay on part of the respondent; and, therefore, the respondent was justified in demanding interest.
6. The complaint was allowed by District Forum-II, New Delhi by order dated 29.04.2010 which directed the respondent to deliver the completed villa to the appellants against the balance payment of Rs. 5,13,850/- without any interest and further directed the respondent to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellants. The order passed by the District Forum-II is presently pending appeal before the State Commission, New Delhi.
7. The Civil Suit filed by the respondent was dismissed by Additional District Judge-15 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi by his judgment and order dated 30.07.2014. The principal issue framed was whether the respondent was entitled to recovery of Rs. 8,73,556/- as alleged? The case put up by the respondent was not accepted by the trial court and rejecting all the contentions of the respondent the suit was dismissed.
8. The respondent being aggrieved filed Regular First Appeal No. 876 of 2016 in the High Court with an application to condone the delay of 721 days in filing said appeal. The explanation offered in support of condonation of delay was that the then advocate had not informed the respondent about the disposal of suit; that the respondent was, therefore, constrained to lodge a complaint against said advocate before the Bar Council of Delhi, which was pending adjudication and that the respondent ought not to suffer on account of the failure on part of their advocate. The appeal came up before the High Court on 16.04.2018. After going into the rival contentions, the High Court observed:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, as recorded in the previous orders, where only some part of the
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.