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

2012 Supreme(SC) 533

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, MADAN B.LOKUR
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
RAGHU NATH GUPTA – Respondent


JUDGMENT

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.-Leave granted.

2. The questions raised in both these appeals are the same, hence, we are disposing of both the appeals by a common judgment.

3. The question that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether the respondents are legally obliged to pay the interest, penal interest and penalty on account of the delayed payment of installments after having accepted the allotment of commercial plots by way of auction. The High Court has taken the view that since there was delay on the part of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short “PUDA”) in providing the basic amenities like parking, lights, road, water, sewerage etc. in time, PUDA cannot legally claim the interest, penal interest as well as penalty on account of the delayed payment of installments. The High Court placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd. (2006) 4 SCC 109 to reach that conclusion.

4. We heard Mrs. Rachna Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of PUDA as well as Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Tushar Bakshi, appearing for the respondents.




























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