Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18)       During the pendency of the present complaint the complainant received a letter dt. 30.07.2013 stating that as the complainant failed to make payment till the extended date i.e. 30.06.2013 therefore the allotment is cancelled and alongwith this an alleged letter of cancellation dt. 24.08.2009 was enclosed. The complainant alongwith his rejoinder placed the letter on record of this Commission. It is pertinent here that the complainant never received the letter dt. 24.08.2009. The OP in replication to the rejoinder stated that due to typographical error the date i.e. 30.06.2013 was mentioned in the letter and alleged corrigendum issued to this effect (Annexure D of replication) but there is no alleged corrigendum is on record of this Honble Commission which itself goes to the root that the OP when exposed is trying to mislead the Commission on the pretext of typographical error and filling of corrigendum. The OP state that the cut-off date mentioned in the letter dt. 30.07.2013 is due to typographical error but OP has not placed on record any file nothing to prove that the date mentioned in the said letter is a typographical error and mere stating that it is typographical error cannot be accepted in absence of any evidence on record. Even for sake of arguments if it is accepted that the date 30.06.2013 is mentioned due to typographical error then how such typographical error occurred thrice in the letter and that too not only the date or month or year is wrong but the complete date. The Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Omwati (Supra) held that DSIDC has waived its rights by demanding the payment after alleged cut-off date i.e. 31.03.2001, whereas in the instant case the DSIDC during the pendency of the complaint sent a letter dt. 30.07.2013 stating that as the complainant failed to deposit 50% of the cost by last date extended up to 30.06.2013 therefore nullifying its own stand.