INDIAN BANK Vs. GAWRI CONSTRUCTION UDYOG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, I will dispose of all the three suits and counter-claim referred above. Defendant No. 1 entered into construction-cum-agreements dated 23rd April, 1990 with the plaintiff-bank for construction on various properties. The sale deed was to be executed within 30 days from the date of giving possession to the plaintiff. Under the agreement, defendant No. 1 was to pay all taxes on the properties subject matter of the agreements till possession was delivered to the plaintiff-bank. The agreement provided for payment of penalty to the plaintiff-bank at the rate of 0.5% of the total sale consideration subject to ceiling of 7.5% of the total consideration if possession of the flats, to be constructed by defendant No. 1, is delayed beyond 18 months from the date of the signing of the agreement. The bank was entitled to rescind the agreement in case of delay beyond 15 weeks and in that case the amount disbursed by it was recoverable with interest from the date of disbursement.

(2.) SUIT No. 864/1999 pertains to construction of 10 flats on Property No. C-17, Inder Puri. Suit No. 865/1999 pertains to construction of 12 flats of Property No. C-12, Inder Puri. Suit No. 985/1999 pertains to construction of 12 flats of Property No. C-10, Inder Puri. Since defendant No. 1 has not executed the sale deeds in respect of the flats constructed by it, despite delivering their possession to the plaintiff, a decree for specific performance of the agreement by directing defendant No. 1 to execute sale deed in respect of the building constructed by it on the aforesaid plots has been sought in all the three suits. In Suit No. 864/1999, the plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rs. 5.20 lakh which it claims to have paid as arrears of property tax for the period prior to handing over of possession to the plaintiff which it has paid to Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is also alleged that the plaintiff-bank has adjusted a sum of Rs. 2,76,765.00 towards price variation and liquidated damages and a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 is payable by it to the defendant which it is ready and willing to pay after settlement of the accounts. .In Suit No. 865/1999, the plaintiff has, besides execution of the sale deed in his favour, also sought a direction to defendant No. 1 install meters in every flat, constructed by it. It is alleged that since possession of the flats was delayed by defendant No. 1, it was liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 39,000.00 which the plaintiff-bank has already adjusted. According to the bank, it was required to pay a sum of 19,033.00 to the defendant which it is ready and willing to pay. In Suit No. 985/1999, the plaintiff has, in addition to execution of the sale deed in his favour, has also sought recovery of Rs. 1108.76.00, being the excess amount paid to defendant No. 1. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 36,400.00 for delay in handing over the possession which the plaintiff-bank has already adjusted.

(3.) AS regards the claim of the plaintiff for the amount paid by it to MCD towards arrears of property tax, it is alleged that no house tax was payable when the building was under construction and, therefore, the claim of the Corporation for the years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 was without any basis and the plaintiff had no right to deal with the demand of MCD without involving the defendants. In Suit No. 865/1999, the defendants have denied their liability to pay any penalty to the plaintiff and have claimed that it was the plaintiff which was responsible for the delay in construction. It is also alleged that the defendants are also entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.19,033.00 which the plaintiffs admit to be payable to defendant No. 1 and the amount of interest comes to Rs. 33,878.00. In Suit No. 985/1999 defendants have denied their liability to pay the amount of Rs. 36,400.00 which the plaintiff claims to have adjusted.