Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, ASHA MENON, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Vikas Goyal – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 191 of 2021, C.M. Appeal Nos. 18854-18855 of 2021
Decided On : 18-06-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D. Relan.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Banthia, Mr. Adarsh Aggarwal.
Point of Law: Re-auction process - Covid-19 Pandemic - Letter of Intent - Authority has issued LOI for further payment and even extended payment was completely undue. Due to government restrictions it was not possible for bidders to arrange funds for such heavy investment during this pandemic.
Headnote:
Interim order - Challenged - Bidder - Seeking extension of time to make payment on account of financial difficulties arising out of Covid - Counsel for appellant has drawn our reference specifically to the e-mails addressed by respondent to appellant, to contend that plea of respondent that Letter of Intent (‘LOI’) cannot be given effect to for it did not mention number of plot allotted to respondent is, on face of it, incorrect inasmuch as respondent was well aware of plot allotted to him and had in fact been seeking extension of time to make payment on account of financial difficulties arising out of Covid.
Finding of the Court:
Emails clearly gives plot number which has been allotted to respondent to his own knowledge as also mentions about LOI being discovered as having been uploaded. It does not complain that said LOI does not give plot number thereby, in any manner, disabling respondent from making payment - Impugned Order passed by learned Single Judge is modified to extent that appellant shall be free to proceed with the auction process that it has already announced even qua plot in question, however result thereof as far as plot in question is concerned shall be subject to further directions of learned Single Judge in writ petition.
Result: Petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
This hearing has been held through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 18854/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
LPA 191/2021 and CM APPL. 18855/2021
1. As the learned counsel for the respondent has appeared on an advance notice and has been heard in the appeal, we dispose of this appeal at this stage itself.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the interim order dated 13.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5138/2021 filed by the respondent herein inter-alia directing as under:
“7. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,63,12,000/- (less Rs. 5,25,600/- already paid. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, let the said monies be deposited with the DDA by the petitioner within 3 weeks. The petitioner’s right and position in the said plot of land shall remain secured till the next date.”
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our reference specifically to the e-mails dated 04.11.2020, 11.12.2020 and 19.12.2020 addressed by the respondent to the appellant, to contend that the plea of the respondent that the Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as ‘LOI’) cannot be given effect to for it did not mention the number of the plot allotted to the respondent is, on the face of it, incorrect inasmuch as the respondent was well aware of the plot allotted to him and had in fact been seeking extension of time to make the payment on account of financial difficulties arising out of Covid.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the fact that the LOI does not mention the exact plot allotted to the respondent is evident from a reading of the said document.
5. He further submits that the Letter of Intent has not been communicated to the respondent and the appellant has not even placed on record the purported e-mail dated 29.04.2020 along with which it claims to have sent the LOI.
6. He submits that while two extensions were granted for the bidders for making payment of the balance 75% of the bid amount, the extension for making the initial deposit of the 25% was granted only once, thereby causing discrimination.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in terms of the Impugned Order, the respondent has also issued a cheque qua the amount payable in terms of the said order in favour of the appellant.
8. We are not impressed with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. The e-mail dated 04.11.2020 of the respondent reads as under:
“I had applied through e-Auction No. Phase VII for INDUSTRIAL PLOT SI. No. 79 Plot No. C-59 Mangolpuri, Ph- I (100 mtr). I was the highest bidder @ INR 1,63,12,000 as on 20th November 2019.The EMD of INR 5,25,600 was paid on 15 November 2019.
I waited for a long time for the letter of intent, and later discovered that the letter of intent No. F.1 (Misc.) Industrial Action Plots/DDA/2017/614 had been uploaded on the online portal on 29 April 2020. There was no intimation via email or message. Since the letter of Intent was uploaded in the Covid lockdown period, it was not duly communicated to us. Also the time extended by your good self was not sufficient to meet out the payments as there was a cash crunch due to the pandemic.
However, I am interested in purchasing the plot and am in the position to make the necessary payments along with interest, if any. Thus, I want an extension so that I can pay for the plot now. Let me know how to proceed further and allow me to make the payments.
Kindly consider the request in these unprecedented times.”
9. The above email clearly gives the plot number which has been allotted to the respondent to his own knowledge as also mentions about the LOI being discovered as having been uploaded on 29.04.2020. It does not complain that the said LOI does not give the plot number thereby, in any manner, disabling the respondent from making the payment.
10. The e-mail dated 11.12.2
