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

1996 Supreme(Del) 955

M.S.A.SIDDIQUI, MAHINDER NARAIN
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
ATUL GUPTA – Respondent


M. S. A Siddiqui

( 1 ) THE short point which needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant DDA (for short the "authority ) is entitled to forfeit the entire amount of Rs. 3,71,250. 00 deposited by the respondents at the time of auction or would it be only entitled to forfeit 20% of the disposal price of the flat No. A- 32, Asian Games Village Complex.-

( 2 ) THE aforesaid question arises on these undisputed facts: By an advertisement published in newspapers, the appellant Authority offered residential flats constructed by it in the Asian Games Village for sale by auction At an auction held on 29. 8. 1986, the respondents made the highest bid of Rs. 14,85,000. 00 for the flat No. A-32, which was accepted and the respondents paid 25% of the bid amount i. e. Rs. 3,71,250. 00 to the appellant. The respondents failed to pay the balance amount despite receipt of the demand letter dated 8. 9. 86 as a result whereof their bid was cancelled by the appellant. Thereafter, respondents demanded refund of the amount paid by them, which was refused by the appellant treating it as forfeited for breach on the contract. On 12. 10. 1988, the respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,





















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