Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
« From the Courts »
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)
 M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
 Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

August, 03rd 2013

%                                       Date of Decision: 09.07.2013

+       W.P.(C) 4662/2010 & CM 9226/2010 (stay)
                                                                           ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr. Bahar U. Barqt, Adv.


                                                      ..... Respondent
                    Through: Ms. Anushya Salwan, Adv.




The petitioner before this Court is an Association of Printers who were allotted
plots of land by respondent no.2-DSIDC. The letters of allotment containing terms
and conditions of allotment including the terms for payment of premium were
issued to the members of the petitioner association. The schedule of payment laid
down in the allotment letters was as follows:

Terms of payment:

S.No.   Instalment        Stage                  Flated Factory   Plot

1.      Earnest Money     Along with application Rs.25,000/-      Rs.300/- per sq.
                          form                                    mtr. Of land

W.P.(C) 4662/2010                                                  Page 1 of 5
2.      1st instalment    At the time of allotment    30%     of    the   50%     of    the
                          of specific pocket block,   estimated    cost   estimated cost of
                          pocket number, after        (earnest money,     the plot (earnest
                          adjusting earnest money.    shall be adjusted   money shall be
                                                      in           this   adjusted in this
                                                      instalment)         instalment.

3.      2nd instalment    Construction upto plinth 30%     of     the 20%       of   the
                          level                    estimated cost     estimated     cost
                                                                      after six months.

4.      3rd instalment    Construction upto roof 30%     of     the 20%     of  the
                          level                  estimated cost     estimated  cost
                                                                    after next six

5.      4th instalment    At completion stage         10%     of     the The balance cost
                                                      estimated cost     at the time of
                                                                         handing     over

6.      5th instalment    At the time of handing Balance cost as                  -
                          over possession        per       actual

2.     The price of the plots, which was initially fixed at Rs.7776/- per square
metres, was enhanced to Rs.7776/- per square metres. Some of the allottees did not
make the payment within the time stipulated in the allotment letter, which led to
cancellation of their plots on several grounds. Those allottees filed petitions in this
Court, challenging the enhanced price demanded by DSIDC in respect of plots
allotted to them as also the cancellation of their plots. A learned Single Judge of
this Court, vide order dated 15.5.2007, held that there was no justification for
enhancement of the price of land from Rs.5400/- per sq. mtrs to Rs.7776/- per sq.
mtrs. Consequently, the demand of Rs.7776/- per square metre was set aside. The
Court, while setting aside the demand of Rs.7776/- per square metre, directed that
the respondent would be entitled to enhance the price which was fixed at Rs.5400/-
per square metre in the year 2001 to a higher figure in the year 2007, depending

W.P.(C) 4662/2010                                                          Page 2 of 5
upon the rate of inflation for the intervening period, applying the Wholesale Price
Index for the period. The said order was challenged by DSIDC before the Division
Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the petition filed by
respondent no.2-DSIDC thereby maintaining the price of the plots demanded @
Rs.7776/- per square metre. The Division Bench, however, did not accede to the
contention of the respondent no.2-DSIDC that besides price of plots @ Rs.7776/-
per square metre, the writ petitioners were also liable to pay interest in terms of
allotment letters issued to them by DSIDC. Being aggrieved from the order of the
Division Bench denying interest, the DSIDC approached the Supreme Court by
way of Special Leave. The allottees also challenged the decision of the Division
Bench to the extent it had upheld the price of Rs.7776/- per square metre. The
appeals so filed came to decided by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated
16.2.2010. A perusal of the said judgment would show that two questions arose for
consideration before the Supreme Court in the said case. The first question was
whether DSIDC was entitled to charge price of Rs.7776/- per square metre and the
second question was whether the respondent no.2-DSIDC was entitled to interest
on the delayed/ defaulted payment. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
DSIDC to charge price of the plots @ Rs.7776/- per square metre and also upheld
its contention regarding payment of interest.     The Apex Court noted that the
allotment letter issued by DSIDC carried a term regarding payment of interest @
18% per annum in case the payment was not made within 60 days from the issue of
the demand-cum-allotment letter. The Apex Court specifically held that the issue
before the High Court was about the allotment price and not about the interest
payable on delayed payments and the allottees cannot therefore refuse to pay
interest on the delayed payment. Noticing that the Division Bench had not given
any clarification in the matter, the Court in order to put an end to any uncertainty
and possible disputes, clarified that the Corporation DSIDC shall be entitled to

W.P.(C) 4662/2010                                               Page 3 of 5
claim and receive from the allottees, interest as per the letter of allotment, on
delayed/ defaulted payment.

3.     The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 states on instructions that the
allotment letters issued to the members of the petitioner association regarding
allotment of plots in Narela carried a term identical to the terms of the letters of
allotment which came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case,
as far as payment of interest is concerned. The petitioner has chosen not to file the
letters of allotment issued by DSIDC to its members and, therefore, I see no reason
not to accept the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-
DSIDC in this regard.

4.     The learned counsel for the respondent no.2-DSIDC has placed on record the
allotment letter issued to an allottee in Bhawana, and clause 3 of the said letter
clearly stipulates that the payment should be deposited within 60 days from the
date of issue of demand-cum-allotment letter and another 45 days are allowed for
depositing the payment with interest @ 18% per annum. The learned counsel
maintains that the allotment letters issued to the members of the petitioner
association carried identical clause. In view of the said clause contained in the
allotment letter, the members of the petitioner association who accepted the
allotment on the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter including
the term regarding payment of interest, are contractually obliged to pay interest in
case they have defaulted in making payment within the time stipulated in the
allotment letters issued to them by DSIDC.

5.     The learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that the amount of interest
payable by those members of the petitioner association who have not paid interest
so far has already been worked out by them and uploaded on their website. She
further states that in order to avoid any controversy in this regard, they shall again

W.P.(C) 4662/2010                                                 Page 4 of 5
work out the amount of interest payable by them as on the date of issue of the
communication and give them 30 days to make payment of the amount demanded
from them towards interest. She further states that the amount of interest will be
worked out in terms of the schedule of payment given in the allotment letter, and
they will also get benefit, if any, accruing to them from various circulars issued by
DSIDC from time to time. She also states that the date on which the price of land
was deposited in this Court would be taken as the date of payment by the allottees.

6.     The demand letters in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for
DSIDC shall be issued within four weeks from today and the individual allottees
shall be given 30 days time to make the balance payment.

       On receipt of all its dues including interest, respondent no.2 shall process the
matter for execution of the lease deed in favour of the individual allottees. The
process in this regard shall be initiated within four weeks from the date the entire
dues are paid. No further orders needs to be passed in this writ petition.

       The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No orders as to costs.

                                                                         V.K. JAIN, J

JULY 09, 2013/rd

W.P.(C) 4662/2010                                                 Page 5 of 5
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Company Overview

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions