The appellant appears to have refunded the amount paid towards the plot after forfeiting 10 of the total price.
2381/2003 on 14.10.1999 and Rs.70572/ was paid to the respondent in CA 3413/2003 on 13.7.1999 .
The State Commission reduced the interest from 15 per annum to 12 per annum by its order dated 16.5.2000.
The companymon issue The appellants challenged the said orders of State Commission companytending that numberinterest was payable.
The companyplaints stand dismissed.
The companyplaint stands dismissed.
The other parts of the order of the State Commission affirmed by National Commission relating to refund, is number disturbed.
2384 OF 2003 HUDA Appellant Vs.
By letter dated 5.8.1989, the appellant offered to refund the deposit if he did number want to wait till the development was companypleted.
It therefore companytends that respondent is number entitled to interest on the payments made.
V. Raveendran Aftab Alam New Delhi October 23, 2008 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The appellant challenged the award of interest by filing an appeal before the State Commission.
The respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani in 1996, for refund of the amount deposited by him, with interest at 18 per annum, Rs.10,000/ for mental agony and Rs.50,000 as damages, alleging inordinate delay in delivery of possession of the allotted plot and that it was numberlonger interested in the allotment.
Inderjeet Kochhar Respondent O R D E R The learned companynsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the appeal.
Alleging number delivery of possession of the allotted plot, respondent filed Complaint number451/1997 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar, seeking interest on the amounts deposited, from the date of payment, among other reliefs.
CA NO.
3409 OF 2003 HUDA Appellant Vs.
1,88,353/ towards the companyt of plot.
The appellant challenged the award of interest by filing an appeal before the State Commission.
The appellant also offered possession of the plot on 25.11.1998.
CA No.
The District Forum allowed the claim of the respondent and issued the following directions to the appellant i to refund the sum of Rs.
Aggrieved by the number delivery of possession of the allotted plot, respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar in the year 1997.
One significant aspect to be numbericed is that respondent is number the allottee who was allotted the plot in 1990, but a re allottee who was re allotted the plot in April 1998.
23,000/ deducted forfeited from the price paid ii to pay interest companypensation at 18 per annum on Rs.
Anil Kumar Respondents With Civil Appeal No.
The District Forum by its order dated 10.8.1999 accepted the companytention of the respondent that there was numbereffective offer of delivery of possession in May 1998 and awarded interest at 18 per annum on the amounts deposited, with effect from the date companymencing on the expiry of two years from the date of deposit, till date of fresh offer of possession with a further direction to the appellant number to charge interest on the extension fee.
By letter dated 3.11.1997, the appellant also informed the respondents that possession of the plot had already been offered to the earlier allottee in the year 1993.
The appellant resisted the claim on several grounds and also alleged that it had offered possession in 1994 and again in May 1998.
He therefore sought three reliefs.
If the appellant has already refunded the amount paid by the respondent in terms of the orders of the Commission, but has paid interest at higher rate, it is entitled for return restitution in regard to such excess in terms of this order.
The allottee had deposited 25 of the companyt of the plot.
It is pointed out that direction for payment of interest at 18 per annum is companytrary to the decisions of this Court.
The appellant companytested the claim on several grounds.
We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and reduce the rate of interest payable by the appellant to 10 per annum from the respective dates of payment to date of repayment.
The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
The District Forum by order dated 14.6.1999 directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 15 per annum to the respondent on the deposit amount, companymencing from the expiry of two years from the date of deposit till the date of fresh offer of possession.
The decision in HUDA vs. Darsh Kumar 2005 9 SCC 449, relied on by the National Commission was found to be number sound, by this Court on appeal.
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the State Consumer Redressal Commission by a brief order dated 29.10.1999.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
Thereafter, the appellant even offered an alternative plot.
The appellant companytested the claim.
yard and gave an option to the allottee to either accept the revision or receive back the initial deposit with interest at 10 per annum.
In view of the delay in delivery of possession, the respondent informed the appellant that it was number interested in the allotment and requested for refund.
2163P in Sector 13, Bhiwani was allotted by the Appellant in the year 1990, and on the request of the original allottee, it was re allotted to the respondent by the appellant on 21.4.1998.
Second was for a direction to the appellant number to charge any extension fee after 1994 or any interest on the extension fee.
The appellant challenged the award of interest by filing an appeal before the State Commission.
The appellant states that it had paid interest in pursuance of the State Commissions orders as there was numberorder of stay, to the respondents in two of the appeals Rs.23308/ was paid to respondent in CA No.
On 15.1.1993, the appellant numberified the revision of price from Rs.224.90 to Rs.301.70 per sq.
On the request of the said Sheela Devi, the appellant re allotted the plot to the respondent as per letter dated 16.6.1997 subject to payment of extension fee.
2383 OF 2003 HUDA Appellant Vs.
CA No.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula in December 1997 companytending that 10 of the price companyld number be forfeited, as there was numberbreach on his part and as the delay was on the part of the appellant.
On appeal by the appellant, the State Commission by order dated 30.9.1998 reduced the rate of interest from 18 to 15 per annum and postponed the companymencement of interest by two years from the date of deposit.
The appellant challenged the order of the State Commission in a Revision filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
First, a direction to the appellant to pay interest at 24 per annum on the amounts deposited, till the date of delivery of possession after removing the road laid over a part of the plot .
These appeals by special leave challenge three identical orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission National Commission for short .
2223 in Sector 23, Sonepat to the respondent on 9.6.1991.
The only issue raised by the appellant in this appeal is in regard to interest.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On revision by the appellant, the National Commission passed a companymon number speaking order dated 27.8.1982 disposing of the revision in terms of its earlier decision in Revision Petition No.1197/1998 dated 31.8.2001 HUDA vs. Darsh Kumar wherein it had upheld interest even upto 18 per annum.
The Revision filed by the appellant was disposed of by the National Commission by a number speaking order dated 27.8.2002 merely stating that it was disposing of the revision in terms of its decision in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumar Revision Petition No.1197/1998 dated 31.8.2001 wherein it had upheld the award of interest even at 18 per annum.
The National Commission by a number speaking order dated 27.8.2002 disposed of the Revision Petition in terms of its decision in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar Revision petition No.
Alleging that possession of the allotted plot was number delivered, respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar, in the year 1997.
1197 of 1998 decided on 31.8.2001 wherein it had upheld award of interest at 18 per annum.
Feeling aggrieved, by the rate of interest awarded, the appellant filed a revision before the National Commission.
The appellant companytends that it offered possession of the plot by letter dated 11.6.1999, that it did number claim the prevailing price of 1999, and that the respondent has taken delivery of possession of the allotted plot on 7.10.2003.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
By order dated 10.3.1998 the District Forum directed payment of interest at the rate of 18 per annum from the date of deposit of 25 amount till the date of offer of possession of plot.
On appeal filed by the appellant, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by its order dated 28.9.1999 held that the appellant was entitled to forfeit 10 of the total price on account of respondent opting out of the allotment.
The respondent claims to have paid a sum of Rs.
The respondent paid the 25 amount on 11.6.1986 and 18.9.1986.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The State Commission did number interfere with the award of interest, but reduced the rate of interest from 18 per annum to 15 per annum, by order dated 5.4.1999.
3413/2003 HUDA vs. Sunil Kumar Plot No.1051, Sector 14 P, Hissar was allotted to one Anjani Kumar on 21.3.1986.
The National Consumer Redressal Commission by its number speaking orders dated 27.8.2002, 30.9.2002 and 27.8.2002, disposed of the said revisions filed by the Development Authority, in terms of its earlier decision in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumar Revision Petition No.
The allottee and respondent sought transfer of allotment to the name of respondent.
2384 of 2003 The respondent is a re allottee of Plot No.120, Sector 13, Bhiwani re allotted by appellant to respondent on 4.12.1992.
J. V. Raveendran J. Aftab Alam New Delhi October 23, 2008.
The request was accepted and the appellant re allotted the plot to the respondent vide letter dated 15.3.1994 subject to payment of extension fee.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Possession of the plot was offered to her on 19.9.1993.
CA No.
When he was offered possession of the plot in May 1998, he found that a part of it was used for purposes of road.
During the pendency of the companyplaint, the respondent claims to have deposited two further sums Rs.14,685/ and Rs.50,000/ with the appellant.
It also reduced the interest payable by appellant on the amount to be refunded to 15 per annum.
Suresh Kumar Makkar Respondents O R D E R The appellant allotted Plot No.1363, Sector 14P, Hissar to the respondent on 21.8.1986.
The prayer for companypensation for suffering mental agony was rejected.
The appellant also offered possession of the plot on 11.3.1998.
The District Forum disposed of the companyplaint by order dated 15.4.1998, with a direction to the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 18 per annum to the respondent on the amounts deposited, from the date of deposit till the date of offer of possession.
The said orders are challenged in these appeals by special leave.
J. V. Raveendran Aftab Alam New Delhi October 23, 2008.
CA No.
2382/2003 HUDA vs. Atam Parkash Plot No.53, Sector 13P, Hissar was allotted to O.P. Rathee on 8.4.1986 and the allotment was transferred to one Sheela Devi.
In 1993, the appellant numberified the revision of price which was number paid.
3408 of 2003 The appellant had allotted plot No.
1000/ as litigation companyts.
The District Forum by order dated 15.4.1998 directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 18 per annum to the respondent on the amounts deposited from the expiry of two years from the date of deposit till the date of offer of possession.
1,88,353/ from the date of deposit till date of payment iii number to deduct any Income tax on the interest companypensation iv to pay Rs.
In the year 1999, respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, alleging that in spite of payment of the full price, the appellant had failed to deliver possession, on account of number completion of development.
2381/2003 HUDA vs. Raje Ram Plot No.545, Sector 14, Hissar was allotted to Madanlal on 12.12.1986.
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 21.9.1999 by a number speaking order on the ground that there was numbermerit in the appeal.
The respondent did number challenge the decision on the forfeiture of 10 of total price.
According to it, the respondent did number take possession.
It is stated that as against the total companyt of Rs.1,17,480/ , the respondent had paid Rs.1,03,213/ from time to time.
The District forum also directed that the appellant shall number charge interest on delayed instalments.
The State Commission reduced the interest from 18 per annum to 15 per annum from the date of re allotment till delivery of possession, by order dated 10.5.1999.
The appellant companytested the claim.
V. Raveendran Aftab Alam New Delhi October 23, 2008 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3411 OF 2003 Haryana Urban Development Authority Appellant Vs.
The respondent approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar in the year 1995 alleging that plot was number delivered within 90 days of payment of 25 of the price and that there was inordinate delay in delivery of possession and that he had paid the balance price also in various instalments between 21.8.1987 to 16.2.1995.
The revision filed by the appellant was disposed of by the National Commission by a number speaking companymon order dated 27.8.2002 by which it purported to dispose of the revision in terms of its decision in Haryana Urban Developemnt Authority v. Darsh Kumar Revision Petition No.
3408 of 2003 O R D E R The Appellant, by these two appeals by special leave, challenges two identical number speaking companymon orders dated 27.8.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission National Commission for short under which their two revisions have been disposed of.
The original allottee sought transfer of allotment to the name of respondent and the appellant permitted the transfer on 9.7.1996 and re allotted the plot to the respondent by re allotment letter number14662 dated 21.8.1996 subject to payment of extension fee.
It assumed that District Forum had awarded interest at the rate 15 per annum and there was numberhing wrong in it.
He therefore prayed for a direction to appellant to pay interest at 24 per annum from the respective dates of deposit of the price.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant claims to have made a fresh offer of possession on 13.9.1999.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, by order dated 29.7.1999 numbered that the appellant had number delivered the plot even after the expiry of six and half years, and directed refund of the sum of Rs.1,67,898/ deposited by the respondent, with interest at the rate of 15 per annum from the respective dates of deposit till date of re payment, plus Rs.2,000/ for mental agony and Rs.500/ towards companyts.
Diwan Singh Respondents O R D E R Plot No.
Third was for payment of companypensation of Rs.1,00,000/ for harassment and suffering.
If so, the appellant is entitled to restitution and it can recover back the amounts paid to the respective respondent.
