APPLE FINANCE LIMITED Vs. CIDCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel, appearing for the contending parties, at considerable length in the matter of grant of interim relief.

(2.) WE have perused the terms and conditions appearing in the brochure inviting bids for offer of plots on lease. We have also perused the terms and conditions appearing in the letter of acceptance as also the agreement of lease. We have also perused the correspondence exchanged between the parties, prior to the presentation of the petition. We have also been taken through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the first Respondent on 21st July, 1997 and affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 1st of July 1998 and the affidavit in surrejoinder dated 8th of July, 1998.

(3.) AS far as the instant case is concerned, petitioners had, in response to the advertisement appearing in the brochure, applied for grant of lease of the land. The first Respondent, by its letter of acceptance, accepted the offer of the petitioner. Petitioner has, thereafter, executed an agreement of lease and has made payment of the earnest money deposit, as also the entire lease premium. Petitioner has, thereafter, proceeded to determine the lease. The first Respondent has refunded 75% of the total lease premium and seeks to forfeit the earnest money deposit and 25% of the lease premium. There is no dispute as far as the right of the first respondent to forfeit earnest money deposit is concerned. The dispute hinges around the right of the first respondent to forfeit 25% of the lease premium.