GOVINDRA KHURANA Vs. SATYA SAI APARTMENTS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Petition the complainants are Smt. Govindra Khurana, wife of Vice -Admiral I.J.S. Khurana (Retd.) and their son, Shri Amarendra Singh. The opposite parties are M/s. Satya Sai Apartments (P) Ltd. (opposite party No. 1); Shri S.K. Mitra, President/Consultant, M/s. Satya Sai Apartments (P) Ltd. (opposite party No. 2) Smt. Chandana Mitra, wife of Shri S.K. Mitra, Managing Director of M/s. Satya Sai Apartments (P) Ltd. (opposite party No. 3); Shri Robin Nag, former Director of Satya Sai Apartments (P) Ltd. (opposite party No. 4). There are two more opposite parties who are only proforma respondents and are not affected by the result of this case. The opposite party No. 4, namely Shri Robin Nag, a former Director of M/s. Satya Sai Apartments (P) Ltd. remained ex -parte. In fact, the Satya Sai Apartments (P) Ltd. is a Company doingthe business of developing land and building flats and the total control of this Company is in the hands of its Managing Director.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 had come out with a 10 pages brochure giving a rosy picture of flats proposed to be built and sold at C -98, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. Tempted by the prospects of a flat at such a posh colony in Delhi, the complainants Nos. 1 and 2 in the first instance booked one basement -cum -ground floor flat each. Later, however, it was agreed between the complainants (and it appears with the consent of Vice -Admiral, I.J.S. Khurana, who is not a complainant herein) and opposite party No. 2 that in lieu of the said two basement -cum -ground floor flats complainant No. 1 would purchase from opposite party No. 1 the second floor pent -house flat No. 7 of super area of 4,000 square feet at a total cost of Rs. 32 lakhs. The cost of this flat as mentioned in the brochure was Rs. 40 lakhs, but the complainant has stated that the sum of Rs. 32 lakhs was arrived at after negotiations between the parties. As a consequence of this agreement, the complainants paid to opposite parties 1 and 2 an amount of Rs. 6,40,000/ - by account payee cheques between 22.1.88 and 7.5.88 against which 5 receipts were issued by the opposite party No. 1. In May, 1988 complainant No. 1 and Vice -Admiral Khurana on the one hand and opposite party No. 2 on the other hand, finalised draft agreement to sell in respect of this pent house for an agreed sale consideration of Rs. 32 lakhs. It is the contention of the complainants that the said draft agreement to sell was initialed by Vice -Admiral Khurana and opposite party No. 2 so as to authenticate the corrections. A fair agreement to sell was not executed and that is one of the complaints of the complainant. This draft agreement is of six pages and incorporates the following conditions :

(3.) IN the written statement/reply filed by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 facts are admitted only upto the stage of complainant No. 1 opting for the 2nd floor pent -house, Flat No. 7 in lieu of the two basement -cum -ground floor flats. They have also stated that the complainants had paid only Rs. 2.70 lakhs in all and that the price of the flat was Rs. 70 lakhs. In paragraph No. 3 of their written statement, opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 feve also stated 'the present value of the flat No. 7 pent -house is more than Rs. 1 crore'. They have contended that in August/1988 the complainant No. 1 and Vice -Admiral Khurana had approached them and expressed their inability to pay Rs. 70 lakhs as the sale consideration and that they were not interested in purchasing the flat. Therefore, the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 forfeited tine amounts paid to them by the complainants. To support the plea that complainant No. 1 and Vice -Admiral Khurana had expressed their inability to purchase this flat, they have enclosed with their written statement two letters dated 8.8.88, addressed to Vice Admiral Khurana and 7.2.91 sent to Ms. Khurana by opposite party No. 2 stating that the amount paid by them to the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 3 have been forfeited in view of the disinclination of the complainants to buy this flat.