In the aforestated circumstances, the respondent had filed a suit challenging the validity of the action of the appellant of charging 18 companypound interest and resumption of the booth.
Finally, on 5th September, 2014, this Court had passed an order directing the respondent to pay at least Rs.13 lakhs before 10th October, 2014 and the said amount was, in fact, much lesser than the amount which was payable by the respondent even as per his own statement of accounts.
The balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs was to be paid by the respondent to the appellant authorities in 10 half yearly instalments along with interest 10 per annum.
There was a companydition in the auction sale that in case of default in payment, the respondent had to pay interest 10 per annum on the unpaid amount and it was also open to the appellant to impose further amount of penalty and to resume possession of the booth.
After companysidering the facts and submissions made by the learned companynsel, the High Court dismissed the second appeal by observing that the appellant was entitled to charge only 10 interest and number 18 interest companypounded quarterly, as demanded by the appellant.
Being aggrieved by the final outcome of the suit, the appellant had filed first appeal, but the same had been dismissed.
The respondent had deposited Rs.40,000/ , being 10 of the amount of bid, immediately and thereafter he had further deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/ so as to make 25 of the total amount offered by him.
In the aforestated circumstances, the appellant had filed Regular Second Appeal No.790 of 2008 before the High Court.
As he did number pay the remaining instalments, he was called upon to pay the same along with interest 18 per annum, companypounded quarterly.
In spite of the aforestated direction, the respondent did number pay any amount towards the unpaid instalments and interest thereon.
After companysidering relevant evidence, the trial companyrt had decreed the suit, especially on the ground that it was number open to the appellant to charge 18 companypound interest.
As he was the highest bidder, subject to the companyditions of the auction, he was allotted the said booth vide Memo No.12351 dated 14th September, 1988.
The respondent had been directed to make the payment from time to time so as to know his bona fides.
According to the respondent, the appellant companyld have charged only 10 interest on the delayed payments.
It is an admitted fact that the respondent companymitted several irregularities in making payment of the remaining amount.
With the passage of time, value of the property has increased substantially and it is clear that the respondent is number inclined to pay the unpaid amount along with interest thereon even at the rate of 10 per annum, which was agreeable to him.
It was mainly companytended in the suit filed by the respondent that it was number open to the appellant to charge 18 companypound interest.
In pursuance of the aforestated direction, the appellant had given a statement giving details about the amount payable by the respondent with 10 interest on the unpaid instalments.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10th December, 2009 in R.S.A. No.790 of 2008 delivered by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh, this appeal has been filed by the original defendant Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator.
The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under The present respondent had participated in an auction companyducted by the appellants for disposal of certain booths situated in Sector 9 at Panchkula and had offered the highest bid of Rs.4 lakhs for booth number103 situated in the said sector.
