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

1998 Supreme(Del) 418

High Court Of Delhi
ASHWANI KAPUR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 3944 of 1994
Decided On : 05/22/1998

Advocates Appeared:
ARUN JAITLEY, Manish Bhatnagar, Navin Chawla, P.N.MISHRA

The forfeiture of earnest money is justified if it is a genuine pre-estimate of the loss flowing from breach of contract and if the amount forfeited is reasonable.

Headnote:

AUCTION - FORFEITURE OF EARNEST MONEY - REASONABLENESS - SECTION 74 OF THE CONTRACT ACT - DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISPOSAL OF DEVELOPED NAZUL LANDS) RULES, 1981 - RULES 29 AND 32 - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was the highest bidder for a plot auctioned by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). He deposited 25% of the bid amount as earnest money. The petitioner failed to pay the balance 75% of the auction price within the stipulated period. As per the terms of the auction, the 25% earnest money was forfeited. The petitioner challenged the forfeiture, arguing that it was unreasonable and unjust.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the forfeiture of the 25% earnest money was justified. The court found that the deposit of earnest money and its forfeiture in the event of failure to perform the remaining part of the contract is a condition really meant to ensure the due performance of the contract. The liability on account of forfeiture of 25% of the price is intended to be a deterrent against breach of contract, i.e., non-payment of the balance 75% price. The court also found that the 25% deposit by way of earnest money is customary in this country and has been upheld by Courts. Further, in the facts of the present case, the 25% deposit is as per the norms laid down in statutory rules to which there is no challenge.

Issues: 1. Whether the forfeiture of the 25% earnest money was reasonable and just? 2. Whether the deposit of earnest money and its forfeiture in the event of failure to perform the remaining part of the contract is a condition really meant to ensure the due performance of the contract?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the forfeiture of the 25% earnest money was justified. The court found that the deposit of earnest money and its forfeiture in the event of failure to perform the remaining part of the contract is a condition really meant to ensure the due performance of the contract. The liability on account of forfeiture of 25% of the price is intended to be a deterrent against breach of contract, i.e., non-payment of the balance 75% price. 2. The court also found that the 25% deposit by way of earnest money is customary in this country and has been upheld by Courts. Further, in the facts of the present case, the 25% deposit is as per the norms laid down in statutory rules to which there is no challenge.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.

Arun Kumar, J.

( 1 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are:the Delhi Development Authority (for short "dda") put up anadvertisement on 7/06/1989 in the newspapers announcing the auctionof a plot for 2/3 star hotel at Pitam Pura, New Delhi. The plot was to be. auctioned as per certain terms and conditions. There is no dispute betweenthe parties about the terms and conditions of the auction including the factthat the auction was on the basis of perpetual leasehold rights and theprovisions of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developednazul Lands) Rules, 1981 would be applicable. The material terms of auctionfor purposes of the present petition are :

" (IV) The officer conducting the auction shall normally accept thebids subject to confirmation by the Competent Authority. Thei highest bid offered at the fall of hammer at the auction and theperson whose bid has been accepted shall pay earnest money,a sum equivalent to 25% of his bid either in cash or by bank draftin favour of the DDA. The amount of earnest money is to bedeposited in Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, INA Colony,new Delhi. If the earnest money is not paid, the auction alreadyheld in respect of that plot shall be cancelled by the Officer conducting the auction. (v ). . . . . (vi) The highest bidder is required to collect the allotment-cumdemand letter on the very next working day of the date ofauction from the special counter. Main Reception, Groundfloor, Vikas Sadan, INA Colony, New Delhi between 4. 00 p. m. to 5. 00 p. m. The highest bidder is required to make thepayment of the balance 75% amount, demanded vide saiddemand letter referred to above, within 90 days from the dateof issue of the demand letter by Bank Draft/pay orders only inthe Branches of Central Bank of India/state Bank of India,vikas Sadan, INA Colony, New Delhi. In case the bidder failsto collect the demand letter on the next working day the dateof issue of the demand letter will be treated the same. If the bidis not accepted, the earnest money will be refunded to thebidder without any interest unless it may have been forfeitedunder para (vii) below. Four copies of perpetual lease deed alongwith the copy of thesite plan indicating the amount of stamp duty/transfer dutywill be supplied to the highest bidder at the time of issuedemand letter to get the lease deed papers stamped from thecollector of Stamps. Thereafter the lease deed will be executedand registered after receipt of full payment and handing overof possession. Provided that the Vice-Chairman, DDA may extend the lastdate of payment, where he is satisfied that sufficient reasonsexist for doing so, upto a maximum of 90 days subject topayment of interest the balance amount @ 18% per annumwhere the delay is 30 days or less and 25% per annum for aperiod exceeding 30 days. "

(VII) In case the payment is not received within the stipulated periodindicated in the demand letter the auction bid shallautomatically stand cancelled and the 25% earnest money shallstand forfeited. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner was the highest bidder for the said plot. Against its bidfor Rs. 3. 30 crores the petitioner deposited Rs. 85 lacs with the respondenttowards 25% of the bid amount as earnest money on 5/07/1989, i. e. thedate of auction. On 6/07/1989 the respondent issued a demand notice tothe petitioner for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 2 crores 45 lacswithin three months, i. e. by 4/10/1989.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the site of the hotel plot was found to betotally undeveloped and not fit for carrying out the construction of the hotel. The DDA had committed a breach of contract inasmuch as a totallyundeveloped plot had been auctioned and sold to the petitioner. Thepetitioner filed a suit in this Court on 29/09/1989. The petitionerprayed that in view of the fact that the plot was undeveloped and there wasbreach of contract on the part of the DDA he was not liable to pay the balanceamount of the auction price. The prayers




































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