HC dismisses appeal of builder for non-appearance
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a city-based builder`s appeal challenging a trial court decision stopping it from cancelling the allotment of a flat, in its housing project.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a city-based builder`s appeal challenging a trial court decision stopping it from cancelling the allotment of a flat, in its housing project, in favour of an allottee who had paid 90 per cent of the total cost of the flat.
Justice V K Shali rejected the plea of Taneja Developers and Infrastructure (TDI) Ltd as it did not appear before the court to press its case and directed that any application for restoring its petition will be entertained only after a sum of Rs 50,000 is deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee by the firm.
"This is a regular second appeal. There is no appearance on behalf of the appellant (firm) despite second call. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution," the court said.
The matter had already been adjourned on two previous dates on request of the builder which had claimed it is trying to settle the matter with the allottee.
The firm had moved the high court against the decision of a district judge upholding the order of a trial court which had stopped the builder from cancelling the allotment of a flat, in its Township project in Kundli, to one Ankita Arora.
The trial court`s order had come on the plea of Arora who had claimed that she had initially paid Rs 7.89 lakh towards booking of the flat and later she had made further payments of Rs 10.46 lakh and Rs 79,250 by cheque in October and November 2010.
She had also contended that the firm had waived the interest on the two delayed payments by her, but had not presented to the bank the two cheques given by her and then issued a letter threatening to cancel the allotment made in her favour.
The trial court had restrained the firm from cancelling her allotment by noting that she had paid a substantial amount for the flat.
The trial court`s decision was upheld by the district judge who had observed that Arora had tendered the cheques after waiver of interest by the firm and if the same were not presented, she cannot be held in default.