PRAVEEN OBEROI Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 12th April, 2013 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge-01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.262/11 filed by the respondent) against the appellant/defendant and in favour of the respondent/plaintiff of recovery of Rs.11 lacs. The said recovery from the appellant/defendant was ordered in enforcement of a clause in the Agreement of Sale of immovable property executed by the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, of payment by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff of double the amount of earnest money paid by the respondent /plaintiff at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell, in the event of appellant/defendant being in breach of the said Agreement. Not finding any discussion in the impugned judgment on the proof of any loss or damage suffered by the respondent/plaintiff by the breach on the part of the appellant/defendant and being of the view that as per the dicta of the Constitution Bench in Fateh Chand Vs. Balkishan Dass, 1963 AIR(SC) 1405 that in the absence of any loss or damage being proved, the mere existence of such a clause in the Agreement does not justify recovery of the amount by way of penalty, notice of the appeal was issued, the Trial Court record requisitioned and subject to the deposit by the appellant/defendant in this Court of the decretal amount of Rs.11 lacs, execution was stayed. The appellant/defendant had deposited the said sum of Rs.11 lacs in this Court.

(2.) After notice, considering that the appeal entailed a purely legal question, with the consent of the counsels, the appeal was finally heard and judgment reserved.

(3.) Need is not felt to set out in detail the controversy, it being not disputed:-