In a contract, the party who suffers by any such breach is entitled to receive compensation for any loss which naturally arises: High Court Of New Delhi
Appellant had approached the learned Single Judge seeking a direction to the Respondent to extend the time for depositing 75% of LPA 419/2021 the balance amount and issue a fresh Demand Notice, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a Division bench judge HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH, in the matter JITIN GARG V. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY dealt with an issue mentioned above. In this case, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on a short ground that the DDA by its Circular dated 02.12.2020 had granted further time to all similarly placed persons to make payments by 31.12.2020, and also appellant did not take the benefit and make payment and instead chose to file a writ petition on 13.11.2020. The Respondent had issued an online advertisement for the e-auction of some residential properties on 10.08.2019. Appellant deposited 5% EMD i.e. Rs.7,00,859/- on 06.09.2019, On 11.09.2019, during the online bidding, Appellant emerged as the highest bidder for the plot in question and the total value of the plot was Rs.2,41,66,000/-. According to the Appellant, the balance payment could not be done because of the lockdown which was imposed by the Government on 23.03.2020 on account of Pandemic Covid-19. On 30.03.2020, Respondent issued a Public Notice for extension of time for making payment under different Housing Schemes, but there was no clarity of the notice related to the plot of the Appellant. However, Appellant was unable to arrange for the loan due to the Pandemic and the last date under the Demand Letter expired. The learned counsel for the Appellant contends that a limited relief was sought by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge for grant of extension of time so that the balance amount could be deposited as the Appellant had already deposited 25% towards the cost of the plot. It was argued that the payment could not be made within the time stipulated in the Demand Letter on account of Pandemic Covid-19. It was mentioned that the appellant made some representations to the DDA seeking extension of time but being unsuccessful in getting the relief, he preferred a writ petition being W.P. (C) No.10331/2020 on 13.11.2020 seeking extension of time to deposit remaining 75% of the value of the plot. Learned Single Judge had also observed in the impugned order that the Circular dated 02.12.2020 granting time for payment up to 31.12.2020, was duly notified on the DDA’s website and many persons have reaped the benefit of the extension. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition. Later it was decided that if the appellant ought to have known that if a plot was being auctioned and he succeeded as being the highest bidder, he was bound to deposit not only the initial 25% but also the balance 75% within the period stipulated in the Demand Letter. Not only did the Appellant not deposit the 75% within the stipulated schedule but also failed to pay during the extended period while many other similarly placed reaped the benefit of time extension. And also if the Appellant chose to remain silent and not act vigilantly or promptly, despite the Circular of the DDA being on the website, he must suffer for the laxity was also mentioned. The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that- “We find no infirmity or error in the impugned judgment. LPA 419/2021 Page 7 of 7 . There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application”.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 10thNovember 2021 Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Advocate DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Counsel for DDA Prabhsahay Kaur HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH D.N. PATEL CHIEF JUSTICEwas already deposited by the Appellant original petitioner) on 10.12.2019 after receiving the Letter of Intent dated Appellant had made some representations to the DDA seeking extension of time but being unsuccessful in getting the relief he preferred a writ petition being W.P C) No.10331 2020 on 13.11.2020 seeking extension of time to deposit remaining 75% of the value of the plot 10. We find as a matter of record that Respondent vide communication dated 02.12.2020 had extended the time on its own volition upto 31.12.2020 perhaps keeping in view the difficulties faced by the public due to Pandemic Covid 19. It is an undisputed fact that the Appellant did not avail the benefit of extension of time granted by the DDA and instead of making payment during the extended time chose to file a writ petition and contest the case. In our view the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Appellant should have taken the benefit of the extended time as a vigilant claimant is expected to be aware of how to pursue his or her claims promptly. Learned Single Judge has also observed in the impugned order that the Circular dated 02.12.2020 granting time for payment upto 31.12.2020 was duly notified on the DDA’s website and many persons have reaped the benefit of the extension. Once the Circular was notified on the website we fail to understand why the Appellant did not seek the benefit of extension and deposit the balance 75%. Surely the Appellant cannot at this stage be given the relief of extension of time once he has failed to avail the benefit given by DDA In any event the plot in question was auctioned by the DDA and it is for the DDA to lay down the time schedules of the payments. This is really in the realm of a contract between two contracting parties and it is not in the domain of this Court to interfere and extend the time for depositing the balance 75%. We also do not find any merit in the contention of the Appellant that he was unable to arrange the loan for making the balance payment. The advertisement for e auction was issued on 10.08.2019 and the online bidding was on 11.09.2019 when the Appellant emerged as a highest bidder. At this stage it was well known to the Appellant that he was required to pay a sum of Rs.2 41 66 000 towards the total value of the plot and there was no reason for the Appellant not to have made arrangements to make the payment. A subsequent event of Pandemic in our view will not inure to the advantage of the Appellant though even this was factored in by the Respondent and extension of time was granted for nearly six months i.e from June 2020 to 31.12.2020 This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition. We are in full agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and for ready reference paragraphs 2 3 & 4 of the impugned judgement are extracted hereunder : The petitioner was a successful bidder of Residential Plot No. 6 Pocket B 1 Sector 29 Rohini Delhi. 5% Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.7 00 859 had been paid on 06.09.2019. A Letter of Intent was issued on 04.12.2019 requiring another 25% to be paid within 7 days from date of its issuance. The said amount was deposited within time. A demand letter dated 19 03 2020 28 03 2020 was issued to the petitioner vide letter no. F 11(109) 2019 LSB(R)469 seeking to be paid by remaining 75% of 25.06.2020. The said monies were not paid. After the date got over the petitioner sought issuance of fresh demand letter from the DDA so that he could arrange for monies. The petitioner did nothing during the period of payment and is seeking to make out a case after the period got over The DDA by its Circular dated 02.12.2020 had granted further time to similarly situated persons to make the payments by 31.12.2020. The said circular was notified on the DDA s website but was not sent to the persons individually. While due notice of Circular is not challenged in the writ petition it did exist on DDA s website and many persons have reaped the benefit of DDA s policy decision. The writ petition itself was filed on 13.11.2020. A vigilant claimant litigant is expected to be well aware of the changes in policy and to pursue his her claims promptly. The petitioner should have taken benefit of the extended time. Surely a bank loan could have been arranged to pay the DDA. Simply because the petitioner wrote a letter to the DDA on 02.07.2020 seeking extension of time does not by itself grant locus to the petitioner for issuance of a fresh demand letter or for extension of No case is made out. The petition is without merit. Accordingly it along with pending applications Appellant ought to have known that if a plot was being auctioned and he succeeded as being the highest bidder he was bound to deposit not only the initial 25% but also the balance 75% within the time period stipulated in the Demand Letter. Not only did the Appellant not deposit the 75% within the stipulated schedule but also failed to pay during the extended period while many other similarly placed reaped the benefit of time extension Merely because the Appellant has approached this Court cannot be a reason enough to grant him further extension against the policy and decision of the Respondent. If the Appellant chose to remain silent and not acted vigilantly or promptly despite the Circular of the DDA being on the website he must suffer for the laxity 14. We find no infirmity or error in the impugned judgment There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith the pending application JYOTI SINGH J NOVEMBER 10 2021 Page 