Delhi District Court
Ms. Muskan Rai vs Alliance Nirman Ltd on 15 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO, ADJ02 & Waqf Tribunal /
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 56196/16 (Old No. 6/15)
CNR No. DLND010009742015
Ms. Muskan Rai,
W/o Sh. Vineet Rai,
R/O. IIC/215, Nehru Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
.....Plaintiff
Vs.
Alliance Nirman Ltd.,
Through: Its MD/Director,
Sh. Arvinder Singh,
Registered Office:
513516, Fifth Floor,
Narain Manzil, 23,
Barakhamba Road,
Delhi110001.
Also at:
324325, Vardhman Bahnhof Plaza,
Pocket7, Plot No. 10, Sector 12,
Dwarka, Delhi.
......Defendant
Date of institution : 05.01.2015
Date on which reserved for judgment : 15.03.2018
Date of decision : 15.03.2018
Decision : Decreed
CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 1/19
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs. 6,70,403/ has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
Plaint
2. It is the case of the plaintiff is that in the year 2006 the defendant with its illusive publicity, propaganda through newspapers, hoardings, pamphlets, agents etc. alluded general public to invest into a project CEDAR HIGHSCLASSIC at Rudrapur, Uttrakhand.
2.1 It is further her case that being alluded by the assured allotment of a developed apartment within six months and possession of the plot at the said project by the defendant, she agreed to purchase a residential Flat measuring 796.50 sq. ft. in the said project and paid a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/, which was duly acknowledged by the defendant.
2.2 It is further her case that after receipt of aforesaid sum, defendant issued a letter for allotment confirmation & agreement formalities thereby requesting her to complete the formalities for allotment of Flat at the aforesaid project with assurance that the entire construction work and the CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 2/19 execution of the title documents shall be completed and possession of flat delivered within the stipulated period of fifteen months from the date of agreement to sell i.e. August, 2008.
2.3 It is further her case that defendant also assured that the remaining consideration shall only be demanded and payable at the time of possession of the flat. It is further her case that as per condition of clause 3(G) of the Flat Buyer Agreement to Sell defendant agreed that in case of delay in construction and possession of the Flat beyond the stipulated period, the developer shall pay to the buyer a compensation @ Rs.5/ per sq. ft., per month of the super area of the Flat for the period of delay.
2.4 It is further her case that she visited the site as well as Delhi Office scores of times since the year 2008 but the Flat was not ready for taking possession. It is further her case that despite repeated requests and demands neither the defendant allotted nor offered the possession of the flat nor paid the compensation as per terms of the Agreement to Sell which reflects that defendant deceitfully procured the investment money of Rs.2,75,000/ from her, with a false assurance that the construction work of the aforesaid project will be completed by November, 2010.
2.5 It is further her case that despite her repeated requests and demands, the defendant with malafide intention to grab her hard earned CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 3/19 money and to cheat her, neither gave possession of the flat nor executed the title requisite documents in her favour nor refunded the earnest/booking amount received by it for the aforesaid project alongwith compensation @ Rs.5/ per sq. Ft. per month as per clause 3 (G) of the Agreement to Sell on one pretext or the other.
2.6 It is further hers case that she was constrained to issue legal notice dated 16.10.2014 to the defendant seeking refund of amount along with interest but to no avail. Hence the present suit.
Written Statement
3. In the written statement preliminary objections were taken that the suit is barred by law of limitation and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and thus the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.1 It was further pleaded that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff herself breached the terms and conditions of the written agreement by not making the payment in time, which was to be made within one year i.e. upto 2007.
3.2 It was further pleaded that suit is not maintainable and CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 4/19 sustainable in the eye of law as the plaintiff has not placed any evidence or documents on record which entitles her to compensation and mere issuance of legal notice does not create any cause of action in her favour.
3.3 It was pleaded that defendant company invited the public at large to purchase the flat with due care and caution and it allotted the flats to the allotees who were genuine purchaser. It was further pleaded that as per terms and condition it was bound to hand over the physical possession and execute the sale deed if the plaintiff paid the rest of installment in a stipulated period mentioned in this agreement, which plaintiff failed to pay, so it was not bound to hand over the physical possession or execute the sale deed and rather the defendant is empowered to forfeit the application money of the plaintiff and accordingly it forfeited the same as per terms and conditions.
3.4 It was further pleaded that plaintiff breached the terms and conditions and as such is not entitled to claim any compensation. It was denied that the plaintiff ever visited the site of the defendant or that she sought refund of the money and it was pleaded that by way of present suit plaintiff is trying to extort money from the defendant.
Replication
4. In the replication plaintiff denied the averments of the written CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 5/19 statement while simultaneously reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the plaint.
Issues
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 05.12.2015 by Ld. Predecessor of this court:
1. Whether this suit is barred by limitation?OPD
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.6,70,403/ as prayed?
OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the interest, as averred in the plaint, if so, at what rate and for which period?OPP
4. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
6. To prove her case plaintiff examined herself as PW1, tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
A. Receipt dated 04.10.2007 as Ex. PW1/1 B. Adjustment memo dated 10.10.2007 as Ex. PW1/2 ( colly) C. Legal notice and postal receipts as Ex. PW1/3 to Ex PW1/7. CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 6/19 6.1 Plaintiff also examined Sh. Vineet Rai as PW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. Defendant's Evidence 7. Defendant examined Sh. Ram Kumar Verma as DW1, who
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the Board Resolution dated 15.02.2018 as Ex. DW1/1.
Findings
8. I have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties, given due consideration to the rival contentions raised at bar and have carefully gone through the record.
8.1 As all the issues being interconnected my finding is as under:
Issue no. 1 Whether this suit is barred by limitation?OPD Issue no. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.6,70,403/ as prayed?OPP Issue no.3 Whether plaintiff is entitled for the interest, as averred in the plaint, if so, at what rate and for which period?OPP CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 7/19 8.2 In nutshell the case of the plaintiff is that she had invested a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/ in respect of flat/apartment admeasuring 796.50 sq. feet with the defendant in its project CEDAR HIGHSCLASSIC however she was never handed over the possession of the said flat/apartment nor the amount was ever refunded to her.
8.3 After going through the entire material on record I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff is indeed entitled to refund of the amount invested by her with the defendant.
8.4 Vide Ex. PW1/1 dated 04.10.2007 plaintiff had booked an area of 796.50 sq. feet in a tower in the project CEDAR HIGHSCLASSIC developed by the defendant. She had paid the booking amount of Rs.
25,000/ which fact stands duly admitted by the defendant. Vide Ex. PW1/2 dated 10.10.2007, which is an adjustment memo, she paid a further sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ which fact is also duly admitted by the defendant. Vide this document the amount was transferred from CEDAR HIGHS to CEDAR CLASSIC Project.
8.5 Admittedly no payment except for the initial payment of Rs. 2,75,000/ was made by the plaintiff. However record would reveal that she was under no obligation to make any further payment nor any payment was ever demanded from her. The plaintiff consistently deposed "No demand CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 8/19 was raised by the defendant after the said payment". Not even a single suggestion was given to the witness that she was deposing falsely and the pleadings otherwise did not claim of giving any such demand notice etc. 8.6 The defendant in its written statement had repeatedly contended that the plaintiff failed to make the payment as per the agreement and committed breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement. However no such agreement was ever brought on record by the defendant. Similarly though the defendant claimed that the payment was to be made within one year i.e. upto 2007 however I completely fail to understand on what basis the said averments were made by the defendant in the written statement. No corroborative document was ever brought on record by the defendant to substantiate its contention that there was breach by the plaintiff. The relevant portion of DW1 in this regard read as under:
"We have not filed any agreement or any other document on record in respect of terms and conditions regarding either the allotment or the terms and conditions of making the payment......
............QCan you explain the default of the plaintiff, as claimed by you? A. Apart from the booking amount of Rs.25,000/ and further payment of Rs.2,50,000/, plaintiff did not make any payment towards the allotment. .......Vol. The plaintiff did not make the payment as per terms and conditions, so possession was not handed over.........
It is correct that I have not placed on record any document whereby plaintiff was called upon to make further payments.......
.........I can not say that any agreement to sell had been executed between the plaintiff and defendant company but if did so, it may be in company record."
8.7 Though the defendant did not bring any agreement, document on record from which the terms and condition of the payment as per the CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 9/19 allotment could be inferred however the plaintiff had filed certain documents which throw light on the schedule of the payment. Ex. PW1/2 is accompanied with the customer ledger report dated 17.12.2011 in respect of the booking made by the plaintiff vide Ex. PW1/1 and it lays down the schedule of the payment to be made. Though as per Ex. PW1/2 the plan which was to be opted by the plaintiff appears to be a construction linked plan and the payment was to be made as per the different phases, stages of construction however it was not a construction link plan as stands proved in view of Ex. DW1/P2.
8.8 Plaintiff had confronted the defendant's witness, DW1 with copy of one agreement to sell i.e. Ex. DW1/P2 which was entered by the defendant with one Sh. Kapil Malhotra. On a careful reading of Ex. DW1/P2 it becomes apparent that after the initial payment, the final/balance payment was to be made only at the time of, before taking the possession of the flat/apartment. Undoubtedly Ex. DW1/P2 was not executed between plaintiff and defendant and it pertains to some other buyer however Ex. DW1/P2 appears to be a proforma agreement to sell which the defendant had entered with all the customers, buyers in respect of the project developed by it. The relevant portion of crossexamination of DW1 which proves the same read as under:
".............It is correct that specimen of agreement to sell executed between defendant company and another buyer Mr. Kapil Malhotra, if of our company. The same is exhibited as EX.DW1/P2. It is correct that as per the clause 3 (C ) of the agreement, there was a condition for balance payment by the buyer, on or before taking over the possession of CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 10/19 apartment."
8.9 DW1 nowhere claimed that the defendant had entered into any other agreement to sell or that the agreement entered with the plaintiff was different from Ex. DW1/P2. Therefore as discussed above when the defendant did not file any agreement to sell which it entered or might have entered with the plaintiff it cannot be ruled out that the defendant might/would have entered into a similar agreement with the plaintiff. Ex. DW1/P2 does not even remotely reflects, mandates, suggests making of payment as per the schedule attached to Ex. PW1/2 i.e. stagewise, construction linked plan. Even otherwise, even if it is assumed that it was a construction linked plan, still the plaintiff cannot be burdened with any liability nor any breach can be attributed to her as the defendant did not lead any evidence oral or documentary to prove that it had demanded the money from the plaintiff or that she refused, neglected and failed to make the payment so demanded in respect of the flat alloted to her.
8.10 It was the consistent stand of the plaintiff that though she had entered into an agreement with the defendant but despite repeated requests she was never provided with the copy of agreement. The relevant portion of the deposition of the plaintiff/PW1 read as under:
"After the aforesaid payment one agreement had been executed between me and the defendant but the copy of the said agreement was not provided to me by the defendant despite several requests and visits of my husband at the office of the defendant. The agreement was signed by me after going through the contents of the same.........It is correct that I have not placed CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 11/19 the agreement to sell as mentioned in my affidavit at para 4. (Vol. The copy of the same was not given by the defendant to me, hence I have not placed the same on record)."
8.11 The relevant portion of PW2 who is the husband of the plaintiff in this regard read as under:
".....The defendant executed a agreement in writing with my wife but they did not give copy of the same....The officials of the defendant assured us for giving the possession of the flat verbally and they also executed an agreement in this respect."
8.12 As per Ex. DW1/P1 which admittedly is the brochure, advertisement of the defendant in respect of the project in question the possession was to be delivered, rather guaranteed within 15 months. As per the plaintiff's case the possession was never delivered or offered to her. Defendant could not bring any material on record which could even remotely suggest that it had offered the possession to the plaintiff. The relevant portion of DW1 in this regard read as under:
It is correct that EX. DW1/P1 is the brochure, advertisement of the project in question. It is correct that in the brochure, the defendant company promised to hand over the guaranteed possession of the apartment within 15 months."
8.13 It will be pertinent to highlight that the allotment of the flat in favour of the plaintiff was merely a provisional one and the allotment was subject to change by the defendant which becomes evident from Ex. PW1/1 as well as Mark D1 with which the plaintiff was confronted during her cross examination. The allotment was subject to execution of the prescribed agreement, agreement for allotment of apartment as per clause 4, 5 and 9 of Mark D1 but no such agreement was ever executed, which has been CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 12/19 discussed in detail above or atleast it was not brought on record by the defendant. At best Ex. DW1/P1 is merely a brochure, advertisement and Ex.
PW1/1, Ex. PW1/2 & Mark D1 are only acknowledgements of receipts towards provisional allotment. Forfeiture of the amount by taking recourse to Clause 10 of Mark D1, as was the case of the defendant in the written statement, cannot be justified in the absence of payment schedule, payment plan and proof of demand and non payment by the plaintiff.
8.14 Furthermore even as per Mark D1 the payment plan opted by the plaintiff was "C" and the defendant miserably failed to prove as to what were the terms and conditions of payment, payment schedule and payment plan "C". No such payment plan was ever brought on record and as has been discussed above Ex. DW1/P2 makes it amply clear that after the initial payment the balance payment was to be made "at any time on or before taking over the possession".
8.15 It will also be pertinent to highlight that the customer ledger account i.e. Ex. PW1/2 dated 17.12.2011 as discussed above, genuineness of which was never disputed by the defendant during the trial, is also an acknowledgement of the amount paid by the plaintiff towards the provisional allotment. It is not clear as to when plaintiff was provided with the said document, but atleast it was on or after 17.12.2011. This goes on to prove that even by that time the possession of the flat was not ready.
CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 13/19 8.16 Hence defendant does not bother to file the agreement it entered with the plaintiff in respect of the project, fails to bring on record any document or other evidence which could even remotely prove that either it demanded outstanding payment or offered the possession to the plaintiff and merely keeps on agitating that the possession was not handed over as the payment was not made by the plaintiff. Defendant failed to prove the alleged terms and conditions of payment or its violation. Whether it was a construction linked plan or whether the payment was to be made by the plaintiff as per Ex. DW1/P2 at the time of or before taking over the possession of the apartment, no fault whatsoever can be attributed to the plaintiff.
8.17 Things would have been different if the defendant would have been able to prove on record that it demanded payment of balance amount from the plaintiff, offered her the possession but she refused, neglected to make the balance payment or and thus take the possession. Once defendant does not prove the same it cannot escape the liability merely by contending that the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation. Question of limitation would have arisen only if the defendant would have been able to prove that it had either offered the possession or demanded the payment and the plaintiff failed to perform that part of her obligation as per the terms and conditions agreed. In the absence of the same it is a continuing cause of action in favour CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 14/19 of the plaintiff. Reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Swapna Bhattacharya Vs. M/s MTech Developers Ltd. in Co. Pet. 54/2013 & CA No. 141142/2013 decided on 22.01.2014 and M/s MTech Developers Ltd. Vs. Swapna Bhattacharya in Co. APP no. 22/2014 decided on 21.04.2014 and Perin Hills Bazun Dittia & Anr. vs M/S. Emaar Hills Township Pvt. CS no. 355 OF 2014 dated 09.03.2016 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
8.18 In Smt. Srivani Mullapudi, vs 1.M.S. Emaar Hills Township Pvt. CS No. 55/2014 dated 21.09.2017 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission it was held as under: "........17.Point No.2: The next question which arises for our consideration in this case is as to whether the complaint is barred by limitation or not. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act provides a limitation of two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action in filing a complaint before a Consumer Forum. Admittedly, the possession of the plot was to be delivered to the complainants within a period of 12 months from the date of execution of the MOU. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12 that a buyer has a recurrent cause of action for filing a complaint for nondelivery of possession of the plot. A consumer books a residential flat for the purpose of having a shelter over his head and not for the purpose of taking refund at later date with or without interest. If the builder performs all his contractual obligations under the sale agreement, the buyer in such a case would have no right to claim refund and will be entitled only to possession of the flat as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. It is only in a case where the builder fails to perform his contractual obligations and deliver possession of the flat to the buyer that he would have a cause of action to seek refund of the money which he has paid to the builder, along with appropriate compensation in the form of interest or otherwise. It would be unrealistic to expect a flat buyer to seek refund of the sale consideration paid by him, immediately on expiry of the time period agreed between the parties for delivery of the possession of the flat to him. His purpose behind taking the flat being to have a shelter over his head, he would like to give some more time to the builder in order to enable him to complete the construction and deliver possession of the flat. It is only when he finds that the builder is unable or unwilling to complete the construction and deliver possession to him within a reasonable time from the last date stipulated for delivery of possession that he would ask the builder to refund the sale consideration paid by him.
CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 15/19 Therefore, in such a case, the date on which the refund is demanded by the flat buyer for the first time will be the date from which the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act has to be computed, unless the builder has even before the flat buyer asking for a refund, expressed his inability or unwillingness to complete the construction and deliver possession to him. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant did not seek refund of the sale consideration paid by her, in fact she seeks execution of agreement of sale/registration of the sale deed , within two years prior to filing of this complaint. Admittedly, at no stage, the opposite parties expressed their inability or unwillingness to deliver possession of the plot or to give refund to the complainant. In Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah And Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269 AIR 1999 SC 380, wherein, the facts and circumstances were similar to the one, involved, in the instant case, it was held that there was a continuing cause of action, and the complaint was not barred by time. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), the complainant applied for a plot, in the year 1992, on the basis of inducement made in the advertisements of the petitioner, knowing fully well, that the land, in question, was under
litigation. Consumer Complaint was filed, in the year 2009, claiming relief of execution of the sale deed, which was granted to him. An objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time. The Hon`ble Supreme Court held that there was a continuing cause of action, and, as such, the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the complaint is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act."
8.19 In view of the above discussion the case laws relied upon by Ld. counsel for the defendant i.e. Om parkash Vs. Dena Bank dated 06.04.2011 bearing RSA No. 400/2006 does not help the defendant. It is not merely the notice which has created cause of action in favour of the plaintiff but it is a continuing cause of action as discussed above. Furthermore DW1 admitted that despite notice i.e. Ex. PW1/3 they did not refund the amount to the plaintiff. The relevant portion read as under:
"I have no knowledge if any legal notice was sent by the plaintiff at the aforesaid address of the defendant. It is correct that despite the said notice, defendant company had not refunded the money, as demanded in the notice. Vol. Plaintiff had not complied with the terms and conditions of the payment, so the money was not returned."
CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 16/19 8.20 Thus the suit is well within the limitation period. Issue no. 1 is thus decided against the defendant.
8.21 Though the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 6,70,403/ however it is to be seen that the said amount includes the amount paid by the plaintiff i.e. Rs.2,75,000/ and Rs.3,35,403/ which the plaintiff is seeking as compensation in terms of Clause 3 (G) of the agreement to sell. As far as the compensation amount is concerned plaintiff could not prove on record that indeed agreement to sell with exactly the same terms and conditions as Ex. DW1/P2 was entered between the plaintiff and defendant. Undoubtedly Ex. DW1/P2 was admitted to be a proforma agreement but still it was upon the plaintiff to prove that a similar agreement was entered between her and the defendant. It was upon her to prove that the agreement so entered had exactly the same terms and conditions regarding the payment of compensation. As the plaintiff has failed to do so, she is not entitled to compensation more so when she is claiming refund of the amount and is not seeking the possession of the flat/apartment.
8.22 Admittedly a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/ was paid, Rs. 25,000/ on 04.10.2007 and Rs. 2,50,000/ on 10.10.2007 vide Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2. Plaintiff is entitled to refund of the said amount from the date it was CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 17/19 given to the defendant. She is also entitled to interest upon the same. Reliance may be placed upon the observations made in Swapna Bhattacharya's case (supra) wherein it was held as under:
18. The petitioner would also be entitled to a reasonable interest as the sums paid by the petitioner have been utilised by the respondent. The respondent had itself demanded interest at the rate of 20% in the event the first installment of `2,25,000/ was not paid within a period of 30 days from the date of the demand. In my considered view, interest at the rate of 12% P.A would be reasonable and the respondent is liable to pay the same.
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Mass Communications (P) Ltd. v. A.P.SRTC: (2003) 11 SCC 17 has held that: "If a court comes to the conclusion on a given set of facts that a party has been wrongly denied the use of its own money, it is the duty of the court to see that the said party is appropriately compensated."
20. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Mass Communications (supra), the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munshi Ram Om Prakash, Bankers and Commission Agents v. Arti Food and Fats Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.: [2008] 142 Comp Cas 678 (P&H) has also directed payment of interest at the rate of 12% P.A. in proceedings for winding up of a company.
21. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Jain v. Polar Forgings & Tools Ltd.: 49 (1993) DLT 552 has held as under: "the creditor need not be forced to initiate separate litigation for recovery of the interest amount and the interest amount can be determined by the Company Judge in the winding up proceedings and on failure of the company to pay that amount the Company can be ordered to be wound up on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. "
22. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhajan Singh Samra v. Wimpy International Ltd.: Co. App. No. 42/2012, decided on 18.05.2012, has affirmed the observation and the decision passed by a Single Judge of this court in the case of Devendra Kumar Jain (supra)."
8.23 Issue no. 1 and 2 are thus decided in favour of the plaintiff and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,75,000/ along with interest @ 6% per annum from 10.10.2007 till the filing of the suit. She is also entitled to pendent lite and future interest @ 9 % per annum till the date of realization of the amount.
CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 18/19 Relief
9. In view of above discussion plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,75,000/ along with interest @ 6% per annum from 10.10.2007 till the filing of the suit. She is also entitled to pendent lite and future interest @ 9% per annum till the date of realization of the amount. I order accordingly.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
11. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court (Gaurav Rao)
on 15th March 2018 ADJ02 & Waqf Tribunal /
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 56196/16 Muskan Rai Vs. Alliance Nirman Ltd. 19/19