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

DELHI HIGH COURT
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Surjeet Dhall – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent


Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks relief for forfeited emd. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner argues against dda's cancellation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court reviews dda's adherence to auction terms. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10)
4. bidders accept auction terms, cannot contest later. (Para 11 , 12)
5. court dismisses petition; no further extension granted. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:

    "a) Set aside the order of the Respondent dated 27.12.2019 wherein the bid of the Petitioner has been cancelled and Rs.1,69,60,750/- paid by the Petitioner as EMD has been forfeited;

    b) Direct the Respondent to refund the entire Earnest Money Amount deposited by the Petitioner along with interest @ 15% per annum.

    c) In alternative direct the Respondent to allot an alternate plot of the same size and in the same area in which the Petitioner had been declared as a successful bidder in the e-auction and while doing so, the entire amount already paid by Petitioner in 2019, along with the interest accrued thereon, may be adjusted against the premium of the alternate Plot to be

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