Vikas Goyal v. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.07.2016 Vikas Goyal ..... Petitioner

Versus

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and another ..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the respondents. RAMENDRA JAIN, J.

1.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of interest @ 8% compounded annually from the date of deposit till 11.09.2015, when the amount was refunded and further to pay interest @ 12% per annum from 12.09.2015 till payment of the interest amount accumulated till 11.09.2015, i.e., the date of the refund.

2.

On 12.12.2011, the respondents floated a scheme named as Purab Premium Apartments, Sector 88, SAS Nagar, Mohali to allot different types of apartments. The petitioner had applied for Type-III apartment and the same was allotted to him through draw of lots. Accordingly, Letter of

-2Intent (for short 'the LOI') dated 22.05.2012 (Annexure P-2) was issued to him. The petitioner opted Plan-A of the LOI and deposited a sum of ` 13,80,000/- vide receipt dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure P-3) being 20% price of the apartment apart from earnest money to complete 30% of the price and further ` 42,60,750/- vide receipt dated 20.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) being balance 65% of the price of apartment. In total, the petitioner had deposited ` 63,30,750/- towards the cost of apartment and was entitled to rebate of 5%. Meaning thereby the petitioner had deposited the entire consideration amount to the respondents. As per terms and conditions of the LOI, the possession of the apartment was to be handed over within three years from the date of allotment.

Since, the respondents failed to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, therefore, the petitioner applied for refund of the amount in view of clause 3(ii) of the LOI, according to which respondents were bound to refund the entire amount deposited by the applicant along with interest @ 8% compounded annually. However, the respondents arbitrarily and illegally paid 8% interest w.e.f. 22.05.2015 to 27.08.2015 i.e. from the date of application of the petitioner for refund of the entire deposited amount till the date, when the cheque was prepared.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents in utter violation of the terms and conditions of clause 3(ii) of the LOI, did not pay the interest from the date of deposit of the amount, rather paid the same from the date of his application for refund in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the delay in completion of the project was on account of

-3non-payment of installments by some of the allottees of the respondent and, therefore, they cannot be burdened with interest @ 8% compounded annually.

5.

For brevity, Clause 3(ii) of the LOI (Annexure P-2) is reproduced hereunder:- 3.

Ownership and Possession (i) xxx xxx xxx xxx (ii) possession of apartment shall be handed over after completion of development works at site in a period of 36 months from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent. In case for any reason, the Authority is unable to deliver the possession of apartments within stipulated period, allottee shall have the right to withdraw from the scheme by moving an application to the Estate Officer, in which case, the Authority shall refund the entire amount deposited by the applicant along with 8% interest compounded annually.

Apart from this, there shall be no other liability of the Authority."

6.

From the perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is clearly evident that respondents were liable to make payment of interest @ 8% compounded annually to an allottee in case, the possession of apartment is not delivered within a period of 36 months from the date of issuance of the LOI. Admittedly, the petitioner had paid the entire price of the apartment

-4amounting to ` 63,30,750/- within the stipulated time. The respondents refunded the amount to the petitioner and paid interest not from the different dates of deposit of the amount of ` 63,30,750/- rather paid the interest from the date of his application for refund in contravention of the aforesaid clause. For the fault of other allottees of the respondents in not making payment of installments in time cannot be made the basis of denial of interest to the petitioner on the due amount from the date of his deposits. 7.

Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to make payment of interest to the petitioner in terms of Clause 3(ii) of the LOI from the respective dates of deposit of installments till the date of final payment i.e. 11.09.2015 @ 8% compounded annually. They are further directed to make payment of interest @ 12% per annum from 12.09.2015 till payment of amount of interest accumulated till 11.09.2015, i.e. the date of the refund. ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) JUDGE July 27, 2016 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No