RAJIV VOHRA versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 21-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
RAJIV VOHRA
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1932 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 21, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA  Y CHANDRACHUD  AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Auction – Commercial property – Willful default by buyer –
Appellant was allotted booth in open auction for Rs.7,55,000/- –
Appellant paid Rs. 1,88,750/- (25% of the sale consideration) but
failed to make payment of the remaining sale consideration – Third
respondent (Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority)
passed resumption order and resumed the booth on account of non-
payment of dues – Appeal filed by the appellant – Resumption order
set aside –  Pursuant to the appellate order, the appellant paid
Rs.7,00,000/- – Revision filed by the third respondent – Resumption
order restored – Writ petition filed by the appellant before High
Court, which was dismissed – On appeal, held: Booth was allotted
in 1996 – After making payment of 25% of the sale consideration,
the appellant defaulted on the terms and conditions of the allotment
– Third respondent  issued notices to the appellant – Despite service
of the notices, the appellant failed to make any payment in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter –
Despite being afforded multiple opportunities to effect payment of
the balance sale consideration, the appellant continued to default
on the terms and conditions of the allotment – Appellant continued
in possession of the booth for over 23 years after paying a meagre
sum  – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court u/Art.142 cannot be invoked
to protect an unscrupulous buyer who took possession of a
commercial property by paying only 25% of the sale consideration
and willfully defaulted on the amount of money payable – No reason
to interfere with the judgment of the High Court – Resumption order
confirmed – Constitution of India – Art.142.
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 822
822
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
823
The appellant was allotted booth in open auction for
Rs.7, 55,000/-. He paid 25% of the sale consideration, but failed
to make payment of the remaining sale consideration. The third
respondent (Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development
Authority) passed resumption order, resuming the booth on
account of non-payment of dues. The appellant filed appeal,
wherein the resumption order was set aside. The third respondent
filed revision. Resumption order was restored. The appellant filed
writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed.
Hence, the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1 The booth was allotted in 1996. The bid at the
auction was accepted for Rs. 7,55,000, of which a total amount of
Rs 1,88,750 (25% of the total sale consideration) was paid by the
appellant.  After making a payment of 25% of the sale
consideration, the appellant defaulted on the terms and conditions
of the allotment. The third respondent issued notices to the
appellant on 3 December 1996, 20 February 1998, 20 October
1999, 3 June 1999 and 18 September 2000. Despite service of
the notices, the appellant failed to make any payment in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.
Despite being afforded multiple opportunities to effect payment
of the balance sale consideration, the appellant continued to default
on the terms and conditions of the allotment. [Paras 9, 10]
[826-E-H; 827-A]
1.2 The appeal filed by the appellant against the resumption
order dated 2 February, 2001 was dismissed in default on 23 April
2002. The application for restoration of appeal filed on 17 June
2002 was dismissed in default on 23 October 2007. Belatedly
after a period of three years, another restoration application was
filed on 22 December 2010. The above factors have justifiably
weighed with the High Court. The appellant executed a General
Power of Attorney in favour of a person by the name of ‘AP’ on
7 June 2001 nearly four months after the order for resumption
was passed. The High Court has with justification, held that the
GPA executed by the appellant appeared to be an assignment of
litigation by the appellant.  [Paras 11, 12] [827-B-D]
RAJIV VOHRA  v.  STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
1.3 The jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 142
cannot be invoked to protect an unscrupulous buyer who took
possession of a commercial property by paying only 25% of the
sale consideration and willfully defaulted on the amount of money

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