Delhi High Court
Jatin Dhillon & Anr. vs Vigneshwara Developpers on 20 October, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 18.09.2015
Pronounced on: 20.10.2015
+ CS(OS) 2955/2014
JATIN DHILLON & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Atul Singh, Adv.
versus
VIGNESHWARA DEVELOPPERS ..... Defendant
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
1. This suit seeks a decree for the recovery of money and damages
arising out of breach of contract. The defendant-company had
invited applications for allotment of a commercial unit at an
Information Technology Park, which was being developed by the
defendant at IMT, Manesar, Haryana, in accordance with the
project guidelines sanctioned by the Haryana State Industrial
Development Corporation (HSIDC). The defendant had made
representations to the effect that it had all requisite authority, rights
and interests to construct the said Information Technology Park and
thereafter sell, lease out and part with possession of the same in the
form of commercial units.
2. Based on these representations, the plaintiffs had applied for the
allotment of one such commercial unit admeasuring 1000 sq. feet
by entering into a 'Developer - Anchor Unit Agreement' dated
07.11.2007 with the defendant, under the terms of which the
plaintiff would pay an amount of Rs. 41,50,000/- as the full and
final sale consideration for the said allotment.
3. The plaintiffs had also entered into a 'Developer Anchor Option
Agreement - Assured Return Plan' dated 07.11.2007 with the
defendant, under the terms of which the defendant undertook to
provide the plaintiffs an assured return of Rs. 65/- per sq. feet on a
per month basis of a Super Area admeasuring 1000 sq. feet for a
period of 60 months from the date of the aforesaid agreement.
4. The defendant, however, failed to provide possession of the
commercial unit to the plaintiffs upon the expiry of 60 months from
the date of the aforesaid agreements. An extension period of 18
months was granted by the plaintiffs to the defendant for
completion of the project upon the latter's request. The defendant
undertook to continue to uphold his end of the 'Developer - Anchor
Unit Agreement' in the meantime, and continued to pay the
stipulated assured return to the plaintiffs.
5. It is the plaintiffs' case that the cheques dated 01.07.2014 issued to
them by the defendant as payment of assured returns, were
dishonoured with the banker's memo : 'Refer to the Drawer'. As a
result, the plaintiffs initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the defendant in respect
of the 'Developer Anchor Option Agreement - Assured Return
Plan'. Upon the expiry of the 18 month-extension period, the
defendant failed to deliver possession of the commercial unit to the
plaintiffs.
6. Through an order dated 26.09.2014, this Court had attached 5 bank
accounts of the defendant in order to prevent it from fleeing the
jurisdiction of this Court or selling its assets or siphoning off the
monies therein to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs. The Court
further noted that the construction raised by the defendant upon the
land situated at IMT, Manesar was negligible; that various FIRs had
been registered against the defendant; that the defendant had been
blacklisted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).
Furthermore, out of 67 bank accounts belonging to the defendant,
56 had been frozen.
7. This Court on 24.11.2014 had directed the defendant to file its
Written Statement (WS) within 30 days thereof. On 06.01.2015, in
the interest of justice, one last opportunity was granted to the
defendant to file the WS. However, the defendant defaulted again.
Consequently, its right to file the WS was closed and on
03.03.2015, the matter was proceeded ex parte against the
defendant.
8. The plaintiffs have reiterated their entire case through their
evidence on affidavit. In a separate suit against the same defendant
(CS(OS) 1991/2014), this Court, vide order dated 09.07.2014, had
directed that the bank accounts of the defendant be sealed in order
to prevent the defendant from fleeing the jurisdiction of the Court
or selling its assets or siphoning off the money it had received from
the plaintiff in that case. The facts of that suit and the present suit
are very similar.
9. The plaintiffs case is unrebutted. There is no reason to deny the
plaintiffs the relief sought in the plaint. This Court is of the view
that insofar as the plaintiffs had made the full and final payment to
the defendant in respect of the allotment of the said commercial
unit, and the defendant failed to deliver possession of the unit even
after lapse of a period of six and a half years since the agreement,
the defendant is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 41,50,000/- with
interest @ 24% thereon calculated from the date of institution of
this suit. The amount shall be paid within two weeks, failing which
the defendant shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% on the entire
due amount till the date of payment.
10.The defendant is further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs for
the suit to the plaintiffs.
11.Let decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
12.The suit is disposed off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
October 20, 2015/nrk
