Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

­

1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on 03.08.2010. The brief facts of the suit as narrated in the Plaint are as follows:­ "Defendant is a company incorporated under the CS No. 163/13/10 Jagjit Singh Sahni Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

Companies 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 @ Rs.1250/­ per sq. ft. on plot admeasuring 300 sq. yards at Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) and made a part payment of ₹4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four Lacs only) vide Demand Draft No.288955/56/57/58 dated 07.06.2006. The said payment was duly acknowledged by the defendant by issuing receipt no.2043 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 CS No. 163/13/10 Jagjit Singh Sahni Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

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 ₹4,00,000/­ and the defendant agreed to refund the aforesaid booking amount along with interest @15% per annum. The plaintiff, on the instructions of the defendant, surrendered the provisional registration with photocopy of Receipt no.2043 to the defendant by moving Surrender Request Application dated 29.12.2008 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 25.04.2009. 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 ₹4,00,000/­ along with CS No. 163/13/10 Jagjit Singh Sahni Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

14. The counsel for defendant has argued that the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff is seeking recovery of amount paid by him CS No. 163/13/10 Jagjit Singh Sahni Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

on 07.06.2006 whereas the suit was filed on 03.08.2010 i.e. after the expiry of three years. But the counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued that the suit is not at all barred by limitation as firstly the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held on 22.01.2014 in Swapna Bhattacharya Vs. M­Tech Developers Ltd., Co.PET. 54/2013 & CA No.141­142/2013 that the contention that the cause of action arose on the day of payment by plaintiff and suit being thus barred by limitation, is wholly erroneous and that after coming to know about the non­construction of project, the petitioner could make a claim only after reasonable period for construction had elapsed and secondly the defendant by issuing letter dated 22.01.2009 i.e. Ex.PW1/6, had acknowledged the liability and thus as per Sec.18 Limitation Act, the fresh period of limitation started from 22.01.2009. I find force in the contention of counsel for plaintiff. Thus as per the above­said case­law the period of limitation could not be calculated from the date of payment of booking amount by plaintiff and secondly even if the contention of defendant's counsel is presumed to be correct, as per Sec.18 Limitation Act fresh period of limitation CS No. 163/13/10 Jagjit Singh Sahni Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

16. Now the question arises that from which date the interest should be awarded? The plaintiff has claimed interest from the date of booking i.e. from 07.06.2006. But the counsel for defendant, while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Zile Singh Vs. CS No. 163/13/10 Jagjit Singh Sahni Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

Mangloo Ram Bansal, RSA No.195/04, has vehemently argued that the interest, if awarded, could not be awarded from the date prior to the date of legal notice although the defendant has denied the receipt of legal notice. Let us first take up, before taking up the point relating to ascertaining the date from which interest could be awarded, the issue raised by the defendant's counsel regarding non­service of legal notice. The defendant has simply denied the service of legal notice in Written Statement. It is settled law that once the letter is sent through registered post at correct address and AD card is received back bearing some signatures, the presumption is drawn about its service upon the addressee unless the same is rebutted. It is held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Smt. Bhavneshwari Devi Vs. Kalyan Singh, 1993 (2) RCR (Rent) 330 that presumption of service arises in law if the AD card of registered post is received back bearing signatures of someone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone even a step further and held that even if the AD card is lost or does not come back for any reason, the presumption of service could still be drawn. It has been CS No. 163/13/10 Jagjit Singh Sahni Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.