Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Devendra – Appellant
Versus
Indore Development Authority – Respondent
ORDER
1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :--
“7.1 Refund of amount to the tune of Rs. 41,98,634/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. to petitioner No. 1;
7.2 Issuance of fresh demand note to petitioner No.1 with respect of payment of first installment of premium amount for Shop No.3, RCM-13 according to reservation letter dated 19.12.2019;
7.3 Not to charge any penal interest on the subsequent demand notes being the petitioner No.1 not at fault;
7.4 Cost be awarded to the petitioners; &
7.5 Any other directions as this Hon?ble Court in the interest of justice may deem fit;
7.6 Quash and set aside notice dated 7.12.2023 (Annexure P/11).
7.7. Alternatively, direct the respondents to further grant time to the petitioner No.1 to deposit the alleged unpaid amount in terms of Rule 12 of the Vyayan Niyam, 2018 and revoke notice dated 7.12.2023 and direct respondents refund the amount paid by petitioner No.2 with interest.”
3. Admittedly, the reliefs as claimed in paras 7.6 and 7.7 have been sought subsequent to the filing of this petition, a
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
The court affirmed that failure to comply with payment terms in a contract justifies forfeiture of earnest money, and a claim for refund is not valid under such circumstances.
Interest is payable only on the principal sum and not on the interest part of the award, unless specifically provided by statute or contract.
Authorities must clarify payment structures and ensure timely refunds, as consumer rights are pivotal in contractual agreements.
The court ruled that failing to meet a stipulated payment deadline invalidates any claims for extension based on subsequent communications, reinforcing the binding nature of auction terms.
Authority must provide preferential land allotment to disabled persons per applicable legislation; arbitrary cancellations and excessive interests are unjust.
The principle of unjust enrichment and the doctrine of legitimate expectations were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the obligation of the Development Authority to act fairly and reasonab....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
