H SOWBHAGYA Vs. N G E F LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the legality of the action taken by the first respondent M/s. N. G. E. F. Ltd. , a fully owned Government Company as per their letter dated 7/8-6-2000 (Copy at Annexure D) apprising the petitioner that it is cancelling the sale of house No. 53 situated at I Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, which the petitioner had purchased in a public auction conducted by the respondent and also forfeiting the Earnest Money deposit (EMD for short) of Rs. 5,56,037/-for non-compliance with the terms of payment subject to which the sale was held. Petitioner has sought for directions to the respondent to accept the balance of the amount payable by the petitioner as per the terms of the sale and to execute necessary sale deed in this regard.

(2.) THE facts leading to the above petition are that the first respondent Company had put to auction sale a property it owned, a house bearing No. 53 situate at i Stage, indiranagar, Bangalore. The petitioner had offered to buy the house at Rs. 1563/- per sq. ft. and at this rate the value worked out to Rs. 22. 24. 149/ -. Petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the cost payable within seven days and the balance 75% within thirty days from the date of communication of the intimation for such payment as per annexure A dated 11-5-1999. There was also an option to the petitioner to seek extension of time up to a maximum of 60 days thereafter subject to payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the extended period. 2a. Petitioner while deposited the 25% of the cost payable which was Rupees 5. 56. 037/-, defaulted in remitting the balance 75%. The factual position is not disputed. The respondent, noticing that the petitioner was not making payment as per the terms of the sale, cancelled the sale in favour of the petitioner as per the communication dated 7/8-6-2000 (Annexure D) and also intimated the petitioner that the EMD and the deposit made by the petitioner totalling Rs. 5,56,037/- was being forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the sale. It is aggrieved by this action of the first respondent, the petitioner is before this Court for relief.

(3.) STATEMENT of objections has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. The action on the part of the first respondent is justified by drawing attention to the very terms of the sale conditions and also the fact that the petitioner is a person who has defaulted in adhering to the conditions and as the petitioner had defaulted in remitting the balance 75% of the cost of the house, it was inevitable for the first respondent to take action for not only cancellation, but also for forfeiture of the amount in deposit with them, which represented 25% of the sale price.