Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

­

1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on 04.08.2010. The brief facts of the suit as narrated in the Plaint are as follows:­ "Defendant is a company incorporated under Companies Jatinder Singh Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 159/13/10 Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of various land projects including the residential complexes/ townships/commercial complexes/built up houses, villas, etc. On the inducement and allurement of the defendant, the plaintiff had booked an individual Villa in the land project of defendant at Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) @ Rs.1,350/­ per sq. ft. on plot admeasuring 300 sq. yards and made a part payment of Rs.3,24,000/­ (Rupees Three Lacs and Twenty Four Thousand only) vide cheque no.713541 dated 18.05.2006. The said payment was duly acknowledged by the defendant by issuing receipt no.2029 dated 15.06.2006 to the plaintiff. At the time of booking, the plaintiff was assured by the defendant that the possession of the said Villa would be handed over to him within a period of 24 months. But despite a number of enquiries made by the plaintiff from time to time from the defendant regarding development of the project, no proper response was received from the latter. On making further enquiries, the plaintiff came to know that no approval was obtained by the defendant from the competent authorities for the said project and that no construction had started at the site even after the lapse of three years. The plaintiff immediately brought the said fact to the knowledge of the defendant and asked for refund of his registration amount of Rs.3,24,000/­ and the defendant agreed to refund the aforesaid booking amount along with interest @15% per annum. The plaintiff, Jatinder Singh Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 159/13/10 on the instructions of the defendant, surrendered the provisional registration with photocopy of Receipt no.2029 to the defendant by moving Surrender Request Application dated 22.01.2009 and while acknowledging the surrender request, the defendant issued a letter dated 22.01.2009 to the plaintiff assuring therein that the defendant would refund the advance/booking amount to the plaintiff by way of demand draft on 25.07.2009. But the said amount was never refunded by the defendant to the plaintiff despite several requests made by the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 29.12.2009 upon the defendant for refund of the advance/booking amount of Rs.3,24,000/­ along with interest @15% per annum. But despite the service of legal notice, the defendant failed to refund the said amount and hence, the present suit."

2. Summons of the suit were issued and served upon the defendant and after service the defendant filed the Written Statement wherein, while denying all the averments made in the Plaint, it has raised the following preliminary objections:­ that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff had not served any notice upon the defendant prior to filing of the suit; that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit as the total cost of the alleged plot booking by the plaintiff was more than Rs.40,50,000/­; that the suit is barred by the law of contract because there was no written Jatinder Singh Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 159/13/10 contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; that the suit is barred by Sec.41 of Specific Relief Act; that the suit is barred by law of limitation and that the suit has been filed without any cause of action. On merits, it has been submitted in the Written Statement that the plaintiff had booked a Villa in a pre­launching scheme but had failed to deposit the installments as per the schedule opted by him and, therefore, the defendant had cancelled his booking and forfeited the amount paid by him. The defendant, in WS, has denied the acknowledgment of amount of Rs.3,24,000/­ vide Receipt no. 2029 dated 15.06.2006. It is further denied that any assurance was given by the defendant for handing of the possession of the Villa to plaintiff within 24 months from the date of booking or that no approval was obtained by it from the concerned authorities. It is submitted by the defendant in the Written Statement that the requisite permission from various concerned departments had been obtained by the defendant and the construction of Villas and flats was in full swing. It has further denied that the defendant had agreed to return the booking amount to the plaintiff along with interest @15% per annum. The service of legal notice dated 29.12.2009 is also denied in the Written Statement.

12. Plaintiff/PW­1 has further deposed that at the time of booking, it was assured by the defendant that the possession of the said Villa would be handed over to him within 24 months, but when the defendant failed to give any proper response to the inquires made by him regarding the development of their project, he himself made inquiries and came to know that the defendant had not even obtained any approval from the competent Authorities for the said land project and therefore he brought the said fact to the knowledge of the defendant and asked it to refund the amount deposited by him. Thus the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had failed to perform its part of the agreement and therefore, he (plaintiff) had demanded refund of his money from the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, has put up his case that the plaintiff had failed to pay the installments as per the payment schedule and hence his amount was forfeited by the defendant. But neither the defendant Jatinder Singh Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 159/13/10 has proved/placed on record any such payment schedule nor any document/agreement as per which it was entitled to forfeit the amount paid by the plaintiff. It was only in the cross­examination of PW­1 that the defendant could elicit from the mouth of the witness that the payment was to be made as per the schedule of payment. But there also the PW­1 had said that for the same agreement was to be formally drawn but the same was never drawn. PW­1 had further said that the payment was to be made on construction link basis and no suggestion was given to him to deny the same. The case of the plaintiff is that no construction was raised at the site by the defendant and this is the reason that he has been demanding back his money. Though, the said fact has been denied by the defendant in Written Statement but neither any evidence is led to disprove the same nor even any document/photograph is placed on record by the defendant to show if any construction had started at the site. Apart from this, it is also pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff/PW­1 has categorically deposed that the defendant had never sent any demand letter for payment of any installment. But neither any suggestion was given to him to deny the same nor it is the case of the defendant that it had issued any letter for demanding any payment of installment from the plaintiff. Thus, in the absence of any willful default on the part of the plaintiff to the demand raised by the defendant, how the defendant could have Jatinder Singh Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 159/13/10 cancelled the booking of plaintiff? The defendant has failed to prove or place on record any document making him entitled to forfeit the money. It is also pertinent to mention here that PW­1 has categorically deposed that on his submission of Surrender Application/Letter i.e. Ex.PW1/4, the defendant had issued a letter dated 22.01.2009 i.e. PW1/5 to him, assuring him to issue a demand draft on 25.07.2009 against surrender of booking. But despite his said categorical testimony, he was neither cross­ examined on this point nor any suggestion for denying the same was given, meaning thereby that the said document has been admitted by the defendant. Thus, if the defendant had agreed to refund the amount of the plaintiff at the time of his surrender of booking, then where the question of cancellation of his booking arises on the ground of non­payment of installments ! The defence raised by the defendant is clearly sham and bogus and appears to be result of an afterthought. Hence, in view of the aforesaid analysis, it is held that the booking of the plaintiff was never cancelled on account of non­payment of installments, rather the plaintiff had surrendered the booking vide Ex.PW1/4 and the defendant had agreed to refund his amount vide Ex.PW1/5 and thus plaintiff is entitled to recover his amount of Rs.3,24,000/­ from the defendant. Thus, Issue no.4 to this extent is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Jatinder Singh Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 159/13/10

13. Now let us come to the interest sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought interest - pre­suit, pendent­lite and future, @15% per annum. The plaintiff/PW­1 has deposed that when he demanded refund of his money, while bringing to the notice of the defendant the facts regarding not obtaining any approval from the competent authorities for the land project by the defendant and further regarding fraudulent tactics adopted by the defendant to usurp the hard earned money of the plaintiff and other innocent investors, the defendant agreed to refund his booking amount of Rs.3,24,000/­ along with interest @15% per annum. The counsel for plaintiff has argued that the standard format of Surrender Application/Letter dated 22.01.2009 i.e. Ex.PW1/4 was provided by the defendant itself to the plaintiff and one of the terms of the said letter grants interest @15% per annum. But the counsel for defendant has vehemently argued that the said letter could not be termed as agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the rate of interest. I find force in his contention as the said letter is simply a letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant expressing therein his wish to surrender his provisional registration of Villa due to non­development in the project and further requesting the defendant to refund his amount along with interest @15% per annum from the date of payment. This request of plaintiff in no manner can be construed as agreement between the plaintiff and Jatinder Singh Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 159/13/10 the defendant even if the standard format of said letter was provided by the defendant. Hence it is held that the plaintiff cannot claim interest @15% per annum by alleging the same to be agreed rate of interest between the parties. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable rate of interest as he has suffered loss because his money is lying blocked for the last almost 8 years and he has been deprived of its use by the defendant.