As per case facts, respondent No.1 applied for a residential plot from HUDA and made a deposit. HUDA allotted a plot, but respondent No.1, citing Clause-4 of the allotment letter, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7522 of 2004
PETITIONER:
HUDA and Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Dr. Babeswar Kanhar and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/2004
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
O R D E R
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.12371 of 2004)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
The controversy in this appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The
respondent No.1 applied for allotment of a plot in response to an advertisement
issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short `HUDA'). The
application was for allotment of a residential plot measuring 250 square yards,
and deposit of Rs.46,625/- was made on 26.12.2000. The HUDA intimated
respondent No.1 by letter dated 30.10.2001 that plot No.2205 in Sector 65,
Faridabad has been alloted to him. The respondent No.1 purportedly, on the
basis of Clause-4 of the letter, sent a registered letter on 28.11.2001, intimating
HUDA that he is not interested in accepting the allotment. The letter was
received on 03.12.2001 by HUDA. Referring to Clause-4 of the letter, HUDA
directed forfeiture of the earnest money deposited. A complaint under Section 12
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short `the Act') was lodged by
respondent No.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Faridabad (in short the `District Forum'). By order dated 31.03.2003, the District
Forum directed refund of the amount deposited along with 12% interest with
effect from the date of deposit till realisation. The matter was carried in appeal
before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana,
Chandigarh (in short the `State Commission') by HUDA. By order dated
09.06.2003, the State Forum reduced the interest to 10% but otherwise affirmed
the order of the District Forum. The matter was carried in revision before the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the `National
Commission'). By the impugned order dated 04.02.2004, the revision has been
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-HUDA submits that there was clear
stipulation about forfeiture in case the intimation regarding non-acceptance is
not given within 30 days. Therefore, according to him, the forfeiture was in order
and the direction for refund within interest is not sustainable in law.
The respondent No.1, who appears in person, submitted that the non-
acceptance was conveyed by letter dated 28.11.2001. The HUDA office was
closed on 01.12.2001 and 02.12.2001. 30.11.2001 was a postal holiday and,
therefore, on the next day after the closure period, i.e. 03.12.2001, the letter was
served on HUDA and therefore the orders of the Forums below do not suffer
from any infirmity.
What is stipulated in Clause-4 of the letter dated 30.10.2001 is a
communication regarding refusal to accept the allotment. This was done on
28.11.2001. Respondent No.1 cannot be put to loss for the closure of the office of
HUDA on 01.12.2001 and 02.12.2001 and the postal holiday on 30.11.2001. In
fact he had no control over these matters. Even the logic of Section 10 of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
General Clauses Act, 1897 can be pressed into service. Apart from the said
Section and various provisions in various other Acts, there is the general
principle that a party prevented from doing an act by some circumstances
beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity (see Sambasiva
Chari V. Ramaswami Reddi (1898) (8) Madras Law Journal 265). The
underlying object of the principle is to enable a person to do what he could have
done on a holiday, on the next working day. Where, therefore, a period is
prescribed for the performance of an act in a court or office, and that period
expires on a holiday, then the act should be considered to have been done within
that period if it is done on the next day on which the court or office is open. The
reason is that law does not compel the performance of an impossibility. (See
Hossein Ally V. Donzelle) ILR 5 Calcutta 906). Every consideration of justice
and expediency would require that the accepted principle which underlies Section
10 of the General Clauses Act should be applied in cases where it does not
otherwise in terms apply. The principles underlying are lex non cogit ad
impossibilia (the law does not compel a man to do the impossible) and actus
curiae nemi nem gravabit (the act of Court shall prejudice no man). Above being
the position, there is nothing infirm in the orders passed by the Forums below.
However, the rate of interest fixed appears to be slightly on the higher side and is
reduced to 9% to be paid with effect from 03.12.2001, i.e., the date on which the
letter was received by HUDA.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in a case involving the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), shedding light on the intricate aspects of Forfeiture of Earnest Money India and Consumer Protection Act Allotment Disputes. This ruling, now prominently featured on CaseOn, underscores the judiciary's nuanced approach to consumer rights, especially when delays occur due to circumstances beyond an applicant's control. Legal professionals and students frequently refer to such judgments for clarity on contractual obligations and statutory interpretations.
This case originated from a dispute concerning the allotment of a residential plot by HUDA. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar (Respondent No.1) applied for a plot, depositing Rs. 46,625/- on December 26, 2000. HUDA subsequently allotted Plot No. 2205 in Sector 65, Faridabad, via a letter dated October 30, 2001. However, citing Clause-4 of the allotment letter, which mandated a 30-day window for non-acceptance, Respondent No.1 communicated his decision not to accept the allotment via a registered letter on November 28, 2001. This letter was *received* by HUDA on December 3, 2001. HUDA, interpreting the delay as a breach of the 30-day period, proceeded to forfeit the earnest money.
The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether HUDA was justified in forfeiting the earnest money when the respondent's communication of non-acceptance, though dispatched within the stipulated 30-day period, was received by HUDA after this period due to public holidays and office closures. Essentially, could the respondent be penalized for a delay caused by circumstances beyond his control?
The Court's decision hinged on several key legal principles and statutory provisions:
This clause stipulated forfeiture of earnest money if the intimation regarding non-acceptance was not given within 30 days of the allotment letter.
This section provides that if the last day for doing an act falls on a holiday, the act may be done on the next working day.
These principles generally hold that a party prevented from performing an act due to circumstances beyond their control can do so at the earliest subsequent opportunity.
The initial complaint was lodged under Section 12 of this Act, indicating the consumer protection framework governing such disputes.
The Supreme Court carefully considered the timeline of events. The allotment letter was dated October 30, 2001. The respondent dispatched his letter of non-acceptance on November 28, 2001, clearly within the 30-day period. However, the letter was only *received* by HUDA on December 3, 2001. The delay in receipt was attributed to a postal holiday on November 30, 2001, followed by HUDA office closures on December 1 and 2, 2001.
The Court affirmed the decisions of the lower forums (District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) which had all ruled in favor of the respondent. The District Forum initially directed a refund with 12% interest, which the State Commission reduced to 10%. The National Commission upheld this. The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent could not be held accountable for delays caused by official holidays and office closures, which were beyond his control.
Applying the spirit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act and the established legal maxims, the Court reasoned that since the respondent had initiated the communication within the prescribed period, and its delivery was delayed solely due to intervening non-working days, HUDA was not justified in forfeiting the earnest money. The principle that the law does not compel the performance of an impossibility was central to this interpretation. CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs provide a concise breakdown of how these crucial principles were applied, offering legal professionals a rapid and effective way to grasp the nuances of such rulings.
The Supreme Court dismissed HUDA's appeal, upholding the decisions of the consumer forums. It concluded that there was no infirmity in their orders. While affirming the refund of the earnest money, the Supreme Court slightly modified the interest rate, reducing it to 9% per annum, to be paid with effect from December 3, 2001 (the date the letter was received by HUDA), until realization.
This judgment is a cornerstone for understanding the interplay between contractual clauses, statutory provisions like the General Clauses Act, and fundamental legal maxims. For lawyers, it reinforces the principle that parties cannot be unfairly penalized for delays stemming from circumstances beyond their control, especially in consumer-related matters. It highlights the importance of scrutinizing the exact reasons for delays and applying a holistic interpretation of the law. For law students, it serves as an excellent case study on the application of 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act in practical scenarios, demonstrating how these abstract principles translate into tangible consumer protections.
Disclaimer: All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers are encouraged to consult with a qualified legal professional for specific legal guidance.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....