DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAMA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is against the judgment and decree passed on 24.7..1998 by learned Single Judge of this Court. Suit of the plaintiff/ respondent has been decreed directing the Delhi Development Authority (for short "D.D.A.") to pay a sum of Rs-27.90 lakhs to the plaintiff/respondent while retaining a sum of Rs.-18.60 lakhs. The claim of the plaintiff/respondent for interest has been negatived. The plaintiff/respondent has also filed cross objections (C.M.75/99).

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent on 26.11.1993 filed a suit claiming a decree for Rs. 60,79,875.00 against the D.D.A. Future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. was also claimed on the suit amount from the date of suit till realisation. The Director (Slums), D.D.A. was also impleaded as defendant No. 2. It was alleged that the plaintiff participated in an auction held on 12.3.1982 and gave a bid for plot No. 9, measuring 351 sq. Mtrs. on Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Being the highest bidder for Rs. 1.86 crores, the plaintiff's bid was accepted on 30.3.1982. A deposit of Rs. 46.50 lakhs was made with the defendant, being 25% of the total bid amount. No architectural control drawings were exhibited or shown at the time of bid, as required under the terms and conditions of auction. Despite requests the same were not supplied but were supplied only on 15.10.1982, after 7 months of auction. Delay in supplying had greatly prejudiced and jeopardised the interest of the plaintiff as they could not negotiate with the prospective purchasers of the proposed commercial flats in order to finance the payment of the balance instalments to the defendant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction. Delay in supply of drawings resulted in heavy losses to the plaintiff. Even the drawings, which were supplied belatedly, were not in consonance with the building bye-laws framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Master Plan for Delhi. Dtespite requests on the grievances and on the prayer to extend the period for making the balance payment, no action was taken by the defendant. Instead on 20.8.1982, Director (Slums) issued notice to the plaintiff that in case the balance amount is not paid by 29.8.1982 alongwith interest, the earnest money would stand forfeited. The said act of the defendant was challenged being illegal besides the subsequent act of re-auctioning the plot. The plaintiff thus claimed against the defendants a decree for refund of the earnest money of Rs. 46.50 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. totalling Rs. 60,79,875.00 and future interest on this amount till the date of payment.

(3.) The suit was opposed by the defendant/D.D-A. on number of grounds, inter alia, alleging that the plaintiff failed to make payment of the balance bid amount. He was duly informed through letter dated 20.8.1982 that no further extension for payment would be permitted. Due to non-payment of the balance bid money, amount of earnest money stood forfeited in terms of the conditions of the auction governing the auction. The plaintiff were also estopped by its conduct. It was not open for the plaintiff to challenge the validity of the auction, which was held in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. Parties rights are duly governed by the terms and conditions thereof. The defendant denied that any request had been made for supply of architectural control drawings etc. Right of the plaintiff for return of earnest money or interest was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: