1996 JTR(SC) 1066
1996 3 CCC(SC) 195 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 195 ; 1997 DNJ 16 ; 1996 7 JT 5 ; 1996 3 RCR(Civ) 532 ; 1996 5 Scale 510 ; 1996 9 SCC 470 ; 1996 Supp3 SCR 591 ; 1996 5 Supreme 717
1996(5) Supreme 717
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Kashmir Chand -Appellant
versus
Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9753 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9134/94)
Decided on 15-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K.B. Rohtagi and Ms. Aprana Rohtagi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : R. Bana, Advocate.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
A) The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was engaged to entertain this appeal challenging an order of the High Court concerning the dismissal of a writ petition. The dispute centered on the appellant's non-compliance with the payment terms of a plot acquired through an open auction in July 1971, invoking principles of contractual obligation and procedural finality as interpreted by the High Court.
B) Key legal principles include the enforceability of auction conditions, the consequences of default after a significant delay in performance, the procedure for challenging administrative orders through writ jurisdiction, and the discretion to grant time for compliance.
Facts of the case:
The plot was sold in an open auction in July 1971 for Rs. 46,000. The appellant paid only Rs. 11,500 and was due the balance of Rs. 34,500. For over 21 years, the appellant did not pay the due amount, leading to a demand for Rs. 3,78,000. The allotment cancellation was challenged via a writ petition in the High Court, where the appellant claimed to have deposited Rs. 34,500 on September 21, 1992. The High Court found that even if deposited, a larger balance remained unpaid and dismissed the petition, a decision affirmed by the appellate order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the payment terms for over two decades. It accepted that some installments may have been paid with interest, but held that the default on the remaining sum justified the demand and the dismissal of the challenge. The single judge's order was confirmed by the appeal.
Issues:
Whether the appellant's delayed payment and subsequent challenge to the cancellation were maintainable before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court's finding that the appellant's long-delayed payment default, despite partial payments, justified the demand for the full amount and the cancellation of the allotment was correct and within its discretion.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, with no costs awarded.
A) The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was engaged to entertain this appeal challenging an order of the High Court concerning the dismissal of a writ petition. The dispute centered on the appellant's non-compliance with the payment terms of a plot acquired through an open auction in July 1971, invoking principles of contractual obligation and procedural finality as interpreted by the High Court.
B) Key legal principles include the enforceability of auction conditions, the consequences of default after a significant delay in performance, the procedure for challenging administrative orders through writ jurisdiction, and the discretion to grant time for compliance.
Facts of the case:
The plot was sold in an open auction in July 1971 for Rs. 46,000. The appellant paid only Rs. 11,500 and was due the balance of Rs. 34,500. For over 21 years, the appellant did not pay the due amount, leading to a demand for Rs. 3,78,000. The allotment cancellation was challenged via a writ petition in the High Court, where the appellant claimed to have deposited Rs. 34,500 on September 21, 1992. The High Court found that even if deposited, a larger balance remained unpaid and dismissed the petition, a decision affirmed by the appellate order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the payment terms for over two decades. It accepted that some installments may have been paid with interest, but held that the default on the remaining sum justified the demand and the dismissal of the challenge. The single judge's order was confirmed by the appeal.
Issues:
Whether the appellant's delayed payment and subsequent challenge to the cancellation were maintainable before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court's finding that the appellant's long-delayed payment default, despite partial payments, justified the demand for the full amount and the cancellation of the allotment was correct and within its discretion.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Admittedly, the plot was sold in an open auction held in July, 1971 for a sum of Rs. 46,000/-. The appellant has paid only 11,500/-. He was due of the balance sum of Rs. 34,500/-. In terms of the auction, he had not complied with the payment for well over 21 years. Consequently, he was demanded payment of a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- which he defaulted to pay. When allotment was sought to be cancelled he calling that action in question, filed a writ petition to the High Court. Pending writ petition, the High Court passed an order in a civil miscellaneous case. Therein the appellant had asserted that he had deposited the sum of Rs. 34,500/- on September 21, 1992. The Court found that in case the said amount of Rs. 34,500/- was deposited, as contended by the appellant, the balance amount of Rs. 3,43,500 was directed to be deposited but he had not done. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and an appeal in the impugned order in MPA No. 355/93 dated 19th August, 1993, the order of the learned single Judge was confirmed.
3. Though time was taken for filing the counter, the same was not filed by the respondents. It is stated by Shri K.B. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the appellant, that his client had already deposited two instalments of the amount with interest @ 12% and one instalment is due. We prima facie accept the statement of the counsel to be correct. In case those payments have already been made, the appellant is given liberty to pay the balance amount within a period of 4 months from today. In case he has not already deposited or if he commits default in payment of the amount as directed, this order would stand vacated and the order of the High Court would stand restored.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
*******