IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S. V. Gangapurwala, Sandeep V. Marne, JJ.
Narayani Trexim Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.5619 of 2021
Decided On : 19-04-2023
Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 62 - Cancellation of allotment - Agreed instalments - Permissible period - Seeking Condonation - Amount of lease premium - Tender - Bidder and an allotment letter - Whether in peculiar of this case Petitioner Society can be permitted to seek compensation and seek acquisition - Held, Judgment is relied on in support of contention that Petitioner was obliged to comply with stipulations in allotment letter and CIDCO cannot be compelled to extend time in breach of stipulations in allotment letter - In case appear to be distinguishable - In case petitioner Society had applied for allotment of shops offices and one canteen and CIDCO had separate issued letters of allotment for each unit - After securing allotment petitioner society filed application for grant of permission to use all units for commercial use and for grant of unconsumed FSI on basis of Development Control Regulations of Municipal Corporation - CIDCO accepted request - Writ Petition Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final hearing.
2. By this petition, petitioner challenges latter dated 27th June 2022 by which City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO) has terminated the allotment letter and forfeited the earnest money deposit in respect of Plot No.3-1C, Sector 18, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Cancellation of allotment of plot is owing to Petitioner’s failure to pay the agreed installments of lease premium and Delayed Payment Charges (DPC) within the permissible period. During pendency of the Petition, Petitioner has paid the entire lease premium together with DPC. It now wants to retain the allotment by seeking condonation of delay in payment of amount of lease premium.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a tender was floated by CIDCO bearing scheme No. MM-II/05/2019-2020 for lease of various plots including Plot No. 3-1C admeasuring 3846.3200 sq. mtr. situated at Sector 18, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Petitioner submitted its bid and paid Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 3,56,79,618/-. Petitioner quoted rate of Rs. 1,36,000/- per sq. mtr. and the total lease premium came to Rs. 52,30,95,520/-.
4. Petitioner was selected as the highest bidder and an allotment letter dated 13th February 2020 was issued in its name. After adjusting the amount of EMD, Petitioner was called upon to pay the balance lease premium of Rs.48,74,19,902/- in two equal installments. The first installment of Rs. 24,37,09,951/- was payable on 28th March 2020 and second installment was of Rs.24,37,09,951 was payable on 27th April 2020. Petitioner could not pay either of the installments within the stipulated time, apparently on account of outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. Petitioner applied for extension of time to pay the first installment vide letter dated 8th June 2020. CIDCO granted extension till 28th June 2020 for payment of first installment. It was informed that failure to pay the installment alongwith DPC would result in cancellation of the allotment letter. On 26th June 2020, petitioner once again applied for extension relying upon various orders issued by the Government of India and State Government. On 29th June 2020, CIDCO communicated to Petitioner that it had committed default and necessary action was being initiated.
5. In the meantime, some of the allottees filed various writ petitions before this court seeking extension of time for payment of installments of lease premium. This court disposed of those writ petitions vide order dated 1st October 2020 directing the Managing Director of CIDCO to decide representations. In compliance with the order passed by this court, the Managing Director of CIDCO passed order dated 4th December 2020 granting extension of time for payment of installments by 9 months. Waiver of DPC was also granted during the period from 25th March 2020 to 24th December 2020. After 25th December 2020, full DPC rates as per prevailing policy of CIDCO were made applicable. The Board of Directors of CIDCO as well as the State Government approved the decision taken by the Managing Director. CIDCO thereafter issued letter dated 1st June 2021 to petitioner conveying it that the online payment gateway was opened and that it would be at liberty to deposit the lease premium with DPC within one month, failing which the allotment letter would be canceled. Petitioner however did not make the payment even within the period up to 30th June 2021. Instead, it addressed letter dated 28th June 2021 (received by CIDCO on 7th July 2021) seeking extension of time up to 90 days. Petitioner did not receive any response and therefore filed the present petition on 3rd September 2021 seeking extension of time for payment of lease premium. During pendency of the present petition, CIDCO passed order dated 27th June 2022 cance
Non-payment of lease salami within stipulated time does not automatically cancel allotment; requires active governmental cancellation, establishing a directory interpretation of time limits.
Non-compliance with payment schedules in allotment agreements leads to automatic cancellation of rights to the property.
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
The court ruled that allotment cancellation for non-payment is valid without prior notice, as applicable law requires notice only post-lease execution, which was not applicable here.
The court upheld the forfeiture of earnest money due to the petitioner's failure to comply with contractual obligations, emphasizing that reliefs sought were not maintainable under Article 226.
The principle of unjust enrichment and the doctrine of legitimate expectations were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the obligation of the Development Authority to act fairly and reasonab....
(1) Breach of reciprocal contractual obligations – A commercial document ought not to be interpreted in a manner that arrives at a complete variance with what may originally have been intention of pa....
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.