Kashmir Chand vs Financial Commissioner,Haryana & Ors
- SCC(1996) 9 SCC 470
- Neutral1996 INSC 742
- SCR[1996] Supp (3) SCR 591
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a party to an auction sale has failed to comply with payment terms over an extended period (here, over 21 years) and seeks relief from forfeiture of the allotment, the court may grant conditional relief by permitting deferred payment in instalments with interest, provided the party demonstrates good faith by partial performance and the court is satisfied prima facie of the factual basis for the claim, with the condition that failure to complete payment within the prescribed period will result in restoration of the forfeiture order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik K.B.Rohtagi and Ms. Aprana Rohtagi, Advs. for the appellent R.Bana, Adv. for the Respondents O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Kashmir Chand V. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors.
O R D E R Leave granted.
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.
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.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free