Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
G.C. AGARWAL V/S HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER, decided on Friday, January 21, 2011.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, SLP(C) No. 587 of 2011 in RP No. 2775 of 2010. ] 21/01/2011
Judge(s) : G.S. SINGHVI & ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Advocate(s) : Shobha. None
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Dr. K.D. Soni & Others Versus HUDA & Others,   06/07/2017.  

  M/s. Sri Vishnu Srirama Constructions Rep. by its Managing Partner V. Rajagopal Reddy Versus The Andhra Pradesh Education & Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director & Others,   04/07/2017.  

  Bharati Hexacom Limited, represented by Sib Kumar Sarma, Deputy General Manager (Legal & Regulatory) Versus The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications (Access Services Cell), New Delhi & Others,   16/05/2017.  

  Jawahar Lal & Others Versus State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department & Others,   27/10/2016.  

  Kanaiyalal Dhansukhlal Sopariwala Versus District Valuation Officer, Valuation Cell & Another,   04/10/2016.  

  Phigu Tshering Bhutia Versus The State of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary & Others,   30/07/2016.  

  Amit Garg & Others Versus M/s. Unitech Limited & Another,   21/06/2016.  

  Dev Arora Versus M/s. Sweta Estates Pvt. Ltd.,   10/06/2016.  

  M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited name changed as M/s. Sun pharmaceuticals Limited represented by Arun Sawhney (for short, ?Sun?) & Others Versus State of Telangana through P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another,   01/04/2016.  

  Namita Saha Versus Rana Jitendra Dey & Others,   29/03/2016.  

  M/s. SRS Retreat Services Limited Versus State of Haryana & Others,   06/11/2015.  

  M/s. Akriti Global Traders Ltd. Versus State of Haryana & Others,   06/11/2015.  

  Jhutharam & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others,   15/10/2015.  

  Syed Sharji Hussain Versus IDBI Bank Ltd. & Another,   05/10/2015.  

  H.U.D.A. Versus Harinder Walia,   14/09/2015.  

  Harminder Singh Koghar Versus Ramnath Exports Private Ltd.,   01/09/2015.  

  Rita Mazumdar Versus State of Assam & Others,   05/08/2015.  

  Rajendra Shankar Shukla & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others,   29/07/2015.  

  Sunita Sahrawat & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others,   29/05/2015.  

  Khatun & Others Versus M/s. Adinath Textiles & Another,   19/05/2015.  

  Inder Raj Agarwal Versus Union of India, rep., by Secretary, Department of Co-operative societies, Secretariat & Others,   24/04/2015.  

  Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Noida,   13/04/2015.  

  Sunitha Venkatram & Another Versus Divya Rayapati,   30/03/2015.  

  Ram Singh & Others Versus Union of India,   17/03/2015.  

  In Re: Jyoti Swaroop Arora Versus M/s Tulip Infratech Ltd. & Others,   03/02/2015.  

  Syead Mohsina Mohammedi Versus Mysore Urban Development Authority,   02/02/2015.  

  Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority HUDA Complex, Sector- Panchkula & Another Versus Shamsher Singh,   27/01/2015.  

  Harbhajan Sharma Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority Through its Administrator & Another,   20/01/2015.  

  Manoj Misra & Another Versus Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests & Others,   13/01/2015.  

  Syed Riyaz Versus The Secretary To Government Department Of Urban Development & Another,   13/01/2015.  

  A. Venkatesh & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department & Others,   12/01/2015.  

  Ashok Kumar Chug Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Panchkula through Its Chief Administrator, Distt. Panchkula (Haryana) & Another,   10/12/2014.  

  EM. Tharani Singh & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others,   09/12/2014.  

  M/s. Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Versus Governor, State of Orissa Through Chief Engineer,   25/11/2014.  

  E. Ramachandran & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others,   06/11/2014.  

  Premnarayan Patidar Versus Municipal Corporation, Bhopal,   28/10/2014.  

  G. Thomas Devanandam & Others Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others,   20/10/2014.  

  M.H. Jagannadha Rao Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,   07/10/2014.  

  Haryana Urban Development Authority Through its Administrator & Another Versus Rajesh Satija,   10/09/2014.  

  North Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others,   05/09/2014.  

  Mahendra Mahato & Another Versus The Central Bank of India & Others,   29/08/2014.  

  Vijay Kumar Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority Sector-6, Panchkula,   22/07/2014.  

  Madurai Bar Association, through its Secretary & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu & Others,   28/04/2014.  

  Ranjana Jetley & Others Versus Union of India, Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others,   01/04/2014.  

  M. Santhaiyan & Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Others,   19/02/2014.  

  Sir Sayyed Education Society Versus State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, For Education Department & Others,   12/02/2014.  

  A-2459 The Coats Viyella Employees Co-operative Housing Societies Ltd. & Another Versus Harvey Nagar Residents Welfare Association, rep. by its Secretary & Others,   28/11/2013.  

  Munishwar Prasad Shukla Versus Dr. P.K. Agarwal & Another,   01/11/2013.  

  State of Haryana & Others Versus Sita Ram & Others,   29/10/2013.  

  Pawan Kumar Agarwal & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others,   27/09/2013.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2014 (16) SCC 327"  ==   ""  







    1. Having failed to convince the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (for short 'the State Commission') and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the National Commission') to confirm the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Faridabad (for short 'the District Forum') for refund of the amount deducted by the respondents as a condition for accepting the surrender of plot the petitioner has filed this petition.2. The petitioner was allotted plot No. 476-P Sector 2 Faridabad vide letter dated 18.11.1998 at the tentative price of Rs. 8 68 296/-. He was required to pay Rs. 1 38 138/- within 30 days in addition to Rs. 78 936/- already paid as earnest money so as to fulfil his obligation to pay 25% of the tentative price. The balance 75% could be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of allotment letter or in 6 annual instalments with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.3. On account of the petitioner's failure to pay the instalments of price on due dates Estate Officer HUDA Faridabad (respondent No.2) issued notice dated 8.6.2001 under Section 17(1) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act 1977 (for short 'the Act') requiring him to pay the instalment of Rs. 1 21 568/- and show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 26 989/- may not be imposed on him. Simultaneously he was asked to pay Rs. 1 48 322/- towards enhanced price. The petitioner sent reply dated 6.7.2001 to contest the show cause notice. He claimed that the demand of instalments was illegal because the possession had not been offered to him. He also challenged the demand for enhanced price. Finally he prayed for refund of Rs. 3 39 064/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and indicated that formal application for surrender will be made after receiving the reply.4. Two more notices were issued to the petitioner on 1.7.2002 and 15.4.2002 but he did not pay the instalments. Instead he submitted an application dated 24.4.2002 to the Administrator HUDA Faridabad for surrender of plot. Respondent No.2 accepted the surrender and refunded Rs. 2 19 439/- after deducting 10% of the consideration money.5. The complainant filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was allowed by the District Forum on the premise that deduction of 10% of the cost was unjustified because possession of the plot had not been offered by the HUDA after undertaking the necessary development works. On appeal the State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum and approved the deduction of 10% of the total consideration money as a condition for acceptance of the surrender. The National commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner by observing that despite repeated communications the petitioner did not pay the amount of instalments.6. We have heard Ms. Shobha learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner had not paid the instalments of premium in accordance with the conditions enshrined in the allotment letter even after receipt of the notice issued by respondent No.2 under Section 17(1) of the Act and demand letters dated 7.1.2002 and 15.4.2002 the action taken by respondent No.2 to deduct 10% of the consideration money cannot be termed as illegal and the State Commission and the National Commission did not commit any error by approving that action.7. We are further of the view that the petitioner had no right to withhold payment of the instalments of premium on the pretext of the alleged failure of the Haryana Urban Development Authority to undertake development in the area - Municipal Corporation Chandigarh v. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd. [(2006) 4 SCC 109.8. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.