DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SHILPA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1119 · Decided: 27-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,· 
T 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
SHILPA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING 
SOCIETY LTD. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 27, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Housing 
A 
B 
Housing Society~A/lotment of land by Development Auth01ity-Es-
C 
calatio11-Refusal to accept allotment-4:;ancellatio11 of allotment-F01feiture 
of eamest mo11ey-Extent of-Held on facts 50% of the actual total deposit 
should be f mfeited. 
The respondent-Societies were allotted land by the appellant· 
Authority. In view of the escalation in premium they refused to accept the D 
allotment and the same was consequently cancelled. On the question as to 
how much of the earnest money deposited by the respondent-Societies 
should be allowed to be forfeited by the Authority, the High Court held 
that in view of the judgment of this Court in Delhi Development .ktth01ity 
v. Glihsthapa11a Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., it should have E 
forfeited a sum of Rs. 5 lacs only. In appeal to this Court it was contended 
for the Development Authority that the Glihsthapana case was inapplicable 
to the facts of the present appeals because in that case, the co-operative 
society had not made any deposit after 10.5.1993 i.e. the date on which this 
Court had disposed of the petition ied by the Housing Society while the 
respondent in the present appeals had paid further sum of money after F 
10.5.1993. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The decision in G1ilzstlzapa11a's case was based on the fact 
that there was no acceptance of the offer given by the appellant-authority G 
on· 3.11.1992 at the enhanced premium, whereas the deposits made in cases 
at hand after the order of 10.5.1993 clearly shows that the offer of 3.11.1992 
was accepted. The ratio in G1ihsthapana case cannot apply. It would have 
been permissible for the Authority to forfeit the entire earnest money due 
form the respondents in view of the law laid down in Glihsthapha case. If H 
1119 
1120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
) 
A 
the Authority is allowed to do so, the amount liable to be forfeited would 
be on very high side .. Keeping in view the many rounds of litigation and 
the hardship which would be caused to the parties, justice demands that 
the respondent-Societies may not be burdened with huge sums in this 
regard. Accordingly it is directed that the Authority may be allowed to 
B 
forfeit 50 per cent of the amount calculated not on the total amountwhich 
the respondents were required to deposit pursuant to the allotment order 
of 3.11.1992 but on the component of the earnest money out of actual total 
deposit. [1121-E; 1122-C-E; F-G] 
*Delhi Development Authm-i.ty v. G1ihstlzapana Co-operative Group 
C Housing Society Ltd., JT (1995) 2 SC 530, explained and held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3962-64 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.94, 14.12.93 and 10-11-94 
D of the Delhi High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. Nos. 3562/94, 5662/93 and 4664 
of 1994. 
Arun Jaitley, V.B. Saharya for Saharya & Co. for the Appellants. 
• Bishwajeet Bhattacharjeet and A Bhattacharjeet for the Respon-
E 
dents. 
Rajeev, for Rakesh Sharma for the Respondent in C.A. No. 3963/96. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
p 
HAN SA RIA, J. Leave granted. 
2. The short point which needs determination in these appeals is : 
How much of the earnest money deposited by the respondents should be 
allowed to be forfeited by the appellant ? The deposil had connection with 
the allotment of land made in favour of the respondents by the appellant, 
G whiCh proposal did not ultimately come through because of the escalation 
of premium, for which reasons the allottees refused to accept the allotment, 
resulting in cancellation of the same. 
3. This Court had occasion to examine this very question in Delhi 
Development Authority v. Glihsthapana Co-operative Group Housing Society 
. H Ltd., JT (1995) 2 SC 530. It is by referring to this decision that the High 
-. 
\ 
_J
D.D.A.v. SHLPACO-OP. GROUP HSG.SOCY. LID. [HANSARIA,J.)1121 
Court, in the impugned judgment, has held that the appellant could have A 
-
forfeited a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs only. The appellant's case is that the facts in 
Grihsthapana's case were different; and so, what was decided therein is not 
applicable. The respondent's stand on the other hand is that their cases 
are covered by the aforesaid decision. 
4. Shri J aitley, appearing for the appellant, has contended that the B 
distinction lies in th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.