TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial plot in that area. 2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, as emerged from the complaint filed by the appellant before the Commission, may be narrated in a nutshell as under:- The dispute in these appeals pertains to allotment of a certain plot of land by the GDA in its Govindpuram Housing Scheme of the year 1988. The appellant applied for allotment of a residential plot pursuant to an advertisement of the GDA after depositing registration fees for an amount of Rs. 7,210 on 10-2-1989. The GDA issued a Reservation Letter to the appellant reserving plot Category-D in her name and further requiring her to deposit the entire balance amount of Rs. 62,240 towards the estimated cost. In the Reservation Letter, it was stipulated that if the payment was not made within three months after it was due along with penal interest, if any, the allotment would be treated as cancelled without notice. It was further stipulated that the possession of the plot would be given in 1991 and that the draw for specific plot number would be held separately. On 5-4-1989, the appellant deposited the entire balance amount of Rs. 62,240 with the GDA but she was not put in possession of any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently returned the entire amount by drawing another cheque for the like amount in favour of the GDA. 6. The Commission, by its Order dated 9-5-2001, rejected the application filed by the appellant primarily on the ground that the appellant not being an "allottee" from the result of the draw held, she was not entitled to any plot, as claimed, and, therefore, the charge of "unfair trade practice" against the GDA/respondent could not be established. It was further held that under clause 9 of the brochure, the appellant was only entitled to the refund of the deposited amount with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. 7. Feeling aggrieved by this decision of the Commission, the appellant also filed a Review Application before the Commission, which came to be registered as R.A. No. 27 of 2001, which was also rejected by the Commis-sion. Accordingly, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Orders of the Commission, the appellant has filed these two appeals in this Court, which was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders of the Commission and also other materials on record i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the amount of Rs. 97,944 to the appellant towards the amount deposited by the appellant along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent and that amount was accepted by the appellant, therefore, it was no longer open to the appellant to challenge the Order of Cancellation after having accepted the amount. Although, the said amount of Rs. 97,944 was returned to the GDA subsequently, it was further argued that since the letter of the GDA dated 10-2-1989 was only a Reservation Letter which was issued pursuant to the application made by the appellant, no allotment of any plot was made in favour of the appellant on account of failure in the draw of lottery, the question of cancelling the reservation of a plot alleged to have already made in favour of the appellant could not arise at all. Accordingly, Mr. Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the GDA sought for dismissal of the appeals and submitted that the Orders passed by the Commission were fully justified. 11. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to reproduce some of the relevant clauses from the brochure, which should be required for the proper appreciation of the controversies involved. Clause 9 of the Brochure is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 per cent, if such amount was kept with the GDA for less than one year. Clause 9.50 deals with refund of registration amount to unsuccessful applicant which would start after one month of the draw. This Clause clearly indicates that the refund of registration amount to unsuccessful applicant shall start after one month of the draw which would clearly show that an applicant who is unsuccessful in the draw of lots would only be entitled to the refund of registration amount and such process of refunding the registration amount shall start only after the draw of lots are finalized. Therefore, reading the aforesaid Clauses in the brochure, it is evident that since the appellant was not allotted any plot and only a plot was reserved subject to holding of a lottery for the specific plots for allotment, the appellant would not acquire any legal right to such plot, only she would be entitled to get refund of her amount deposited with the GDA. 13. In view of our discussions made hereinabove and a clear reading of the clauses of the Brochure, it would be evident that two separate parts of the clauses have been indicated in the brochure. The first part was with regard to the reservation am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich is not available with GDA for allotment, even if it is held that allotment of plot was made by GDA in favour of the appellant. A decision of this Court in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India [2007] 74 SCL 198 (SC) may be referred as it was also cited at the Bar. In that decision it has been clearly held that the amount of interest to be awarded for refund of any amount deposited by the candidate would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Such being the state of affairs, we are of the view that the appellant should be allowed to get refund from the GDA the entire sum with interest at the rate of 18 per cent not at the rate of 5 per cent as we find that from the brochure itself, it would be clear that in the event, the appellant could not deposit the entire amount after the allotment is made within certain time, 18 per cent interest shall be levied on the appellant. It is an admitted position that the appellant deposited the entire amount as directed by the GDA in the year 1989 and the order of cancellation of reservation of a plot in favour of the appellant was made after more than seven years and, therefore, we must hold that the respondent was l....