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

2020 Supreme(P&H) 18

DAYA CHAUDHARY, MEENAKSHI I MEHTA
Paramjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Pankaj Katia, Advocate, Sahil Sharma, Advocate, Rupinder Khosla, Advocate, Sarvesh Malik, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta , J. - The petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver the possession of Plot No. 8447 measuring 150 sq. yds. to him with the further prayer for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the condition as imposed vide letter dated 27.06.2016 requiring him to deposit the excessive/exaggerated amount.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts necessitating the filing of this petition, are that the petitioner applied to the respondent-department for allotment of the plot under its Aerocity Scheme and deposited earnest money to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- on 06.07.2010. In the draw of lots as held on 12.10.2010, he succeeded and deposited the balance amount so as to fulfil the condition of deposit of 25% amount of the total price at that stage. The Letter of Intent (hereinafter to be referred as "LOI") was issued to him on 18.03.2011 and he opted to deposit 70% amount out of the balance amount/price as per Plan-C, whereby he was supposed to pay this amount in seven half-yearly instalments commencing from the date of LOI and thus, the entire period stretch

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