Full Text
Translation output
>'
A-29 o/o 08.7.2011
Present : Mr. P.K. Shanna , Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Renuka Arora , Advocate for the respondent DDA.
+ CONT CAS (C) No. 32O|2O1-O t< vide order dated 12.01".2006, the petitioner had been directed to pay the balance shorLfall of Rs. 75,0001- in the first installment of Rs. 3, 15,000/- along with the interest at the rate of
L6% per annum. It is not disputed that this shortfall of Rs. 75,0001- has since been paid over to the respondent; interest of Rs. 30, 650/- accruing at the rate of 1-6% per annum has also been sent by post to the respondent; this was vide communication dated 1-6.10.2008.
Balance second installment of Rs. 3, 15,000/- has admittedly not been paid by the petitioner; contention of the petitioner is that no demand had been made upon him by the respondent.
This wrir perition (wP(c) No. 1533/2003) had only prayed for an extension of time for payment of the shortfall of {75,000/- of the
1't installment. There was no relief sought qua the payment schedule for the balance amount. There is no dispute about the factum that the balance sum of Rs. 3, 15,000/- is yet due and payable by the petitioner. Record shows that no efforts have been made by the petitioner to pay this sum. Contention of the respondent is that against the order of this court dated L2.0I.2006 an SLP had been preferred which had been dismissed by the Apex
J
2011:DHC:8122
:
{"F.
&
,l
Court on 2B.O2.2OLL. This has led to the delay in the implementation of the order dated L2.0I.2006. The delay was not intentional and was for the reason aforentoed and explained above.
A demand notice dated 1.7.03.2011 has now been sent to the petitioner; a copy of which is placed on recordj demand of Rs.
8,20,5751- has been mad,e upon the petitioner which comprises of the principal sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- and interest quotient is of Rs.
5,05,575/- which is calculated at tB o/o per annum from 21".04.2002 to 20.03.201,L i.e from the date when the installment of Rs.
3,1-5,000/- had become due up to the date of the demand. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the interest at the rate of L8% is charged as per the policy of the DDA.
Even on a specific query put to the petitioner today in court, he states that he only has a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- to pay to the petitioner and he has yet to make financial alTangement for the payment of interest. At this stage, he seeks extensj.on of time for the said purpose. Period of eight weeks is granted to the petitioner to make the payment of the amount in terms of the demand notice dated I7.03.20LL. No turther directions are palled for in this
I petition which is disposed of accordingly. I
,^-
INDERMETT KAU& J.
JULY OB, 20LL
SS
A-29 o/o 08.7.2011
Present : Mr. P.K. Shanna , Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Renuka Arora , Advocate for the respondent DDA.
+ CONT CAS (C) No. 32O|2O1-O t< vide order dated 12.01".2006, the petitioner had been directed to pay the balance shorLfall of Rs. 75,0001- in the first installment of Rs. 3, 15,000/- along with the interest at the rate of
L6% per annum. It is not disputed that this shortfall of Rs. 75,0001- has since been paid over to the respondent; interest of Rs. 30, 650/- accruing at the rate of 1-6% per annum has also been sent by post to the respondent; this was vide communication dated 1-6.10.2008.
Balance second installment of Rs. 3, 15,000/- has admittedly not been paid by the petitioner; contention of the petitioner is that no demand had been made upon him by the respondent.
This wrir perition (wP(c) No. 1533/2003) had only prayed for an extension of time for payment of the shortfall of {75,000/- of the
1't installment. There was no relief sought qua the payment schedule for the balance amount. There is no dispute about the factum that the balance sum of Rs. 3, 15,000/- is yet due and payable by the petitioner. Record shows that no efforts have been made by the petitioner to pay this sum. Contention of the respondent is that against the order of this court dated L2.0I.2006 an SLP had been preferred which had been dismissed by the Apex
J
2011:DHC:8122
:
{"F.
&
,l
Court on 2B.O2.2OLL. This has led to the delay in the implementation of the order dated L2.0I.2006. The delay was not intentional and was for the reason aforentoed and explained above.
A demand notice dated 1.7.03.2011 has now been sent to the petitioner; a copy of which is placed on recordj demand of Rs.
8,20,5751- has been mad,e upon the petitioner which comprises of the principal sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- and interest quotient is of Rs.
5,05,575/- which is calculated at tB o/o per annum from 21".04.2002 to 20.03.201,L i.e from the date when the installment of Rs.
3,1-5,000/- had become due up to the date of the demand. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the interest at the rate of L8% is charged as per the policy of the DDA.
Even on a specific query put to the petitioner today in court, he states that he only has a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- to pay to the petitioner and he has yet to make financial alTangement for the payment of interest. At this stage, he seeks extensj.on of time for the said purpose. Period of eight weeks is granted to the petitioner to make the payment of the amount in terms of the demand notice dated I7.03.20LL. No turther directions are palled for in this
I petition which is disposed of accordingly. I
,^-
INDERMETT KAU& J.
JULY OB, 20LL
SS
2011:DHC:8122
JUDGMENT