M/S. BHANDARI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY versus NARAYAN GOPAL UPADHYE

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. BHANDARI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 
V. 
NARA YAN GOPAL UPADHYE 
'' 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
,Indian Contract Act, 1872/Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Ss.91 and 92: 
)-
c 
'Sale-purchase agreement-Selling of Office room-Payment of 
consideration amount in full by purchaser-Revision 'n cost-Return of 
amount to purchaser-Vendor company allegedly demanding revised price 
partly in cash and partly through cheque-Vendee making payment-Issuance 
of receipt against the payment made through cheque-Company raising 
demand for payment oj balance amount - Not paid by purchaser-Cancellation 
D of allotment and return of amount by the company-Complaint-District 
Forum directing the purchaser to pay the balance amount with interest to 
get t.he possession of office premises in question--:-Reversed by State 
•• 
Commission-Affirmed by National Commission-On appeal, Held: When 
terms of a transaction reduced in writing, it is impossible to lead evidence 
to contradict its terms in view of s. 91 of Evidence Act-Case as set up by 
E the purchaser in his evidence not established-No document produced to 
show that balance payment was made by him in cash-Hence, no evidence 
adduced to show that the balance amount due under the agreement was 
paid-Neither the State Commission nor the National Commission gave 
sustainable reasons· differing from conclusion of the District Forum-Hence, 
F order of both the National Commission and the State Commission set aside 
f 
and :hat of District Forum restored. 
.... 
Appellant-Vendor is a construction company and respondent sought to 
purchase an office from it. The parties agreed to sell and purchase an office. 
Terms of the transaction were redivised to writing. According to the vendor, 
G the purchase price. was fixed at Rs.7,75,000/-. In addition, documentation, 
registration and other expenses were to be borne by the vendee. A sum of Rs. 
5,00,000/- was paid by the Vendee and the balance due, was Rs. 3,41,190/-. 
:.__ -
Since, the vendee did not pay the sum due, the sale transaction was not 
complete, and therefore the room was not put in the possession of the vendee. 
, 
.. 
H 
924 
> 
. 
BHANDARI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, .. NARAYAN GOPAL UPADHYE 
925 
Aggrieved, vendee approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum with A 
·· a complaint. However, his case as per amended complaint was that the vendor 
agreed to sell a room for a price ofRs.9,00,110/-. The amount was paid by 
him in a lump and receipt was issued. Though, the vendor issued an allotment 
letter, but in spite of repeated demands after completion of the construction, 
the vendor did not put him in possession and an extra amount was demanded B 
from him. It issued a notice intending to terminate the agreement. Since 
possession was not given and the company attempted to sell the premises to 
someone else, he suffered losses. The payment by the purchaser was to be 
the essence of the contract. The total purchase price shown in the agreement 
was Rs.7,75,000/-. in his evidence before the District Forum, the respondent-
purchaser made a departure from the complaint regarding consideration, C 
admitting that a sum ofRs.9,00,000/- paid by way of two cheques by him was 
returned to him; that he had agreed to destroy the receipt; that the cheques 
were returned because the vendee wanted a portion nf the consideration in 
cash. He handed over a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/-, as agreed on all hands. The 
same day, he withdrew from the bank a sum ofRs.4,00,000/- and handed over 
the cash to an agent of the vendor-company. But he could not produce receipt D 
for payment thereof. The District Forum took the view that it would be proper 
to leave the respondent to approach the Civil Court for relief in view of the 
nature of the dispute. The vendee went up in appeal to the State Commission. 
The State Commission remanded the complaint to the District Forum to decide 
the dispute. The District Forum passed an order giving liberty to the E 
respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,40,890/- along with interest at 15% per 
annum till the date of payment and to obtain possession of the office premises 
in question within a period of two months from the date of receipt of that 
judgment and directed the company to handover vacant possession of the 
premises. Aggrieved, the respondent appealed to the State Commission. The 
company filed a belated appeal but the delay was refused to be condoned. F 
Therefore, the decision of th

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