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

1991 Supreme(Del) 654

G.M.NAYAR, SUNANDA BHANDARE
DIMPY FASHIONS INDIA – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MADAN BHATIA, Ravinder Sethi, V.K.Seth

SUNANDA BHANDARE J.

( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) SINCE. A very short point-is involved we proceed to decide the wr ite petition finally.

( 3 ) PLOT No. 48/7 measuring 501. 66 mts. in E Block, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 11,new Delhi was auctioned by the respondent-Delhi Development Authority by way of a public auction held on 22. 10. 1984 The petitioner, a partnership fiim made- the highest bid for the sum ofs 74,ooo. 00. The petitioner paid. a sum of Rs. 2 lacs at the fall of the hammer, on 14. l2. 1984 the Delhi Development Authority issued a letter to the petitioner confirming acceptance of its bid by Vice-Chairman and asked the petitioner to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 5,40,11. 00. By another letter dated 31. 12. 1984 the respondent Delhi Development Authority informed the petitioner that the due date for payment of the balance amount was 13. 1. 1985 The petitioner however did not make the payment and vide letter dated 11. l. 1985 prayed that since the petitioner had suffered in the riots of November 1984 the time for deposit of the balance bid amount be extended. The respondent however on 20. 2. 1985 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the bid may not be cance








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