TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the finding that as against the market value of ₹ 20.00 lacs, the petitioners were selling the property at a much lesser rate. Liability of purchaser to pay the pending amount - HELD THAT:- The reading of the agreement does not reveal that any liability of the purchaser remained. Petition dismissed - other related applications also dismissed. - CWP No.5125 of 1995 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 11-9-2019 - MR AJAY TEWARI AND MR HARNARESH SINGH GILL, JJ. For The Petitioners : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akhilesh Barak, Advocate and Mr. Mukul, Advocate For The Respondents : Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Senior Panel Counsel ORDER AJAY TEWAR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed ₹ 1,20,000/- (Rs.One Lac Twenty thousand only) as and advance/Earnest Money from the SECOND PARTY in Cash/By Cheque/Draft and the balance price of ₹ 1088052 of the said Plot/House shall be paid by the Second Party to the FIRST PARTY at the time of Registration of Sale Deed of the said Plot/House before the concerned Sub-REgistrar. Money returned and Agreement cancelled. Sd/- I.S.Sood. 5. All the expenses in respect of Registration of Sale Deed/Attorney documents, Stamp Duty, Registration Charges and other Misc. expenses shall be borne by the SECOND PARTY. 7. The property to be transferred/sold under tlis Agreement is free from all encumberances, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment. It is not clear if any reply was filed by the petitioners but petitioner No.1 (on her own behalf) and on behalf of petitioner No.2 appeared before the appropriate authority. It seems that a letter dated 13.10.1994 was written which is not on the record and ultimately the appropriate authority held that the value of the subject property was under stated by more than 15% and ordered the purchase by the Central Government of the said immovable property. During this interregnum the petitioners had entered into an another agreement to sell with the third party from whom it had received a sum of ₹ 3.50 as earnest money. The respondent No.1-Union of India held the price to be ₹ 12,08,052/- and out of that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs is that in any case the sum of ₹ 2,98,424/- which was the pending amount would have to be paid by the purchaser and therefore, this amount should have been paid by the Central Government and not foisted upon the petitioners. In this regard the terms of the agreement to sell assume great significance. Countering this argument learned counsel for the respondents has urged that to decide this issue the (para No.(i) of the agreement) would assume great importance. As per her the agreement mentions the total sale price as ₹ 12.88 lacs. Further it is mentioned that ₹ 1,20,000/- has been received and 'the balance price' of Rs .10,88,052/- would be paid at the time of registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
