TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court ruling on payment obligations, penalties, and interest for allottees.</h1> <h3>Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and Ors. Versus Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the provision of amenities by the Chandigarh Administration and Municipal Corporation is not a condition precedent for the ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the provision of amenities is a condition precedent for the payment of premium, interest, and penalties on allotted plots.2. Interpretation of the term 'amenities' under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952.3. Legitimacy of charging interest rates and penalties by Chandigarh Administration and Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh.4. Examination of individual cases for the provision of amenities and corresponding relief.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Condition Precedent for Payment of Premium, Interest, and PenaltiesThe Supreme Court addressed whether the provision of amenities by the Chandigarh Administration and Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh is a condition precedent for the payment of premium, interest, and penalties by allottees. The Court concluded that the provision of amenities is not a condition precedent. The Court stated, 'It is not possible to accept a sweeping proposition that if all the facilities or amenities are not provided, then the allottees/lessees can take upon themselves not to pay the lease amount, interest, and penalty.' The Court emphasized that while the administration has an obligation to provide amenities, this obligation does not excuse allottees from their payment responsibilities.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Amenities'The Court examined the definition of 'amenities' under Section 2(b) of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, which includes roads, water-supply, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, public buildings, horticulture, landscaping, and any other public utility service provided at Chandigarh. The Court rejected the extended interpretation of 'amenities' that would make their provision a condition precedent for payment. The Court stated, 'The term amenity in the context of real estate is to mean the facilities as provided under Section 2(b) of the Act but it can never be treated to mean that this is a condition precedent.'Issue 3: Legitimacy of Charging Interest Rates and PenaltiesThe Court addressed the legitimacy of charging interest rates and penalties by the Chandigarh Administration and Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh. The Court upheld the administration's right to charge interest and penalties as stipulated in the lease agreements and the rules. The Court stated, 'The allottees are under obligation to pay the same. However, so far as the question of payment of penalty & penal interest is concerned, that shall depend on facts of each case to be examined by the High Court.'Issue 4: Examination of Individual CasesThe Court remitted the individual cases back to the High Court for examination of the provision of amenities and corresponding relief. The Court directed, 'The High Court may consider that in case where Kutcha road, drainage, sewerage, drinking water facilities have been provided, no relief shall be granted but in case, any of the facilities had not been provided, then the High Court may examine the same and consider grant of proportionate relief in the matter of payment of penalty under Rule 12(3) and delay in payment of equated installment or ground rent or part thereof under Rule (12(3A) only.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in M/s. Shanti Kunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. and remitted the cases back to the High Court for individual examination based on the provision of amenities. The Court emphasized that while the provision of amenities is an obligation of the administration, it is not a condition precedent for the payment of premium, interest, and penalties by the allottees. The High Court was directed to grant proportionate relief where amenities were not provided, focusing on penalties and interest rather than the principal payments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
