Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing The Estate Officer And Another vs Parveen Kumar on 17 September, 2009

Parveen Kumar vs Haryana Urban Development Authority on 3 December, 2013

In fact, circumstances appearing on record would indicate that controversy regarding rate on interest has been raised by the petitioner to camouflage his intention not to pay the due installment and continue enjoying Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.12.05 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P. No.21639 of 2010 (O&M) -9- possession of the booth constructed on the booth site. The booth site was allotted to him on 15.06.1988. He took possession of the booth site immediately on its allotment; raised construction thereon without even getting the plan approved and occupied the booth so constructed in the year 1993. Last installment towards balance purchase price (after adjusting 25% paid by him) was payable on or before 15.06.1993. Order of resumption was passed on 26.04.2001. Till that day the petitioner had deposited only an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (on 04.05.1993).Controversy regarding rate of interest was raised for the first time in Civil Suit No.19 of 2001 which was filed on 22.01.2001. In fact Estate Officer, HUDA, was waiting for petitioner's response to the various notices issued to him when the suit was filed presumably to pre-empt passing of order of resumption, which was the only alternative available to HUDA in the situation for which the petitioner alone was responsible. Needless to say, Section 50 of the Act bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court and it has ultimately been so held by this Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2009 passed in RSA No. 2317 of 2009, The Estate Officer and another versus Parveen Kumar, arising from the civil suit filed by the petitioner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S K Mittal - Full Document

Huda And Anr vs Sat Pal And Ors on 5 February, 2018

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents has submitted that since the defendant HUDA had been wrongly insisting upon payment of the amounts along with 18% compound interest, therefore, the demand itself was beyond the authority of the defendants. Therefore, notices issued by defendant No. 2 were in excess of their authority and so in violation of the procedure prescribed by the law. It is further argued by him that, even the notices issued by defendant are totally stereo type issued in a mechanical manner, without disclosing anything as to the details of payments on account of principal and the interest components. Learned counsel has also argued that, bare fact that the defendants had shown a staggering increase in amount in short durations also shows that the amount sought to be charged by them does not have any 10 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2018 23:23:57 ::: RSA No. 2879 of 2009(O&M) 11 statutory backing and they have been raising the demand in an arbitrary manner. Learned counsel has also argued that the notice under Section 17 (3) of the HUDA Act was never received by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings under Sections 17(4) and Section 18 of the HUDA Act are totally violative of the procedure prescribed by the Act. Regarding the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has submitted that the same is not applicable in the facts of the present case because in that case the procedure under the Act was followed by the authorities and in that case the plaintiffs had not paid any substantial amount after the payment of the initial amount pursuant to the notices issued by the defendants. Whereas in the present case there is violation of the statutory procedure and also the plaintiffs in the present case had made payment of Rs. 6,35,000/- in installments from time to time which were duly accepted by defendant without protest. However, since the defendants were not giving clear cut calculations regarding the principal and the interest outstanding against the plaintiffs, despite being so demanded by the plaintiffs, therefore, the insistence of the defendants upon the amount calculated by them was totally arbitrary and not supported by any statutory provisions under which defendants were functioning. Accordingly, learned Senior counsel submits that the substantial question of law framed by the Court deserves to be answered against the appellants/defendants. Civil Court has rightly entertained the suit. The judgment and the decree passed by the Courts below deserve to be upheld.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Sehrawat - Full Document
1