Delhi District Court
Santosh Kumari vs Vardhman Properties Limited on 23 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KULDEEP NARAYAN,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CS No.337/2022
CNR No. DLSE01-003060-2022
1. Smt. Santosh Kumari
W/o Late Prem Prakash
R/o C-234, Gali No.8,
Majlis Park, Lord Krishna Road,
Delhi-110033
2. Smt. Mamta Gandhi
W/o Sh. Vijay Gandhi
R/o 26/138, 2nd Floor,
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
............. Plaintiffs
Versus
M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd.
G-9, Vardhman Trade Centre,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
(Through Managing Director)
............ Defendant
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 1 of 50
KULDEEP
NARAYAN
Digitally signed by
KULDEEP NARAYAN
Date: 2025.08.23
14:00:59 +0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
Date of Institution : 01.06.2022
Date of reserving Judgment : 18.08.2025
Date of pronouncement : 23.08.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
JUDGMENT
The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking recovery of
Rs.17 Lakhs.
Pleadings:
2. The brief facts as per the plaint are that the plaintiffs jointly
booked two units No. T-96 & T-97 in Vardhman Central Mall,
L.S.C., Nehru Vihar, New Delhi and an agreement in this regard
was executed on 18.08.2007 between the plaintiffs and the
defendant company. Plaintiffs deposited Rs.20,000/- vide receipt
No.56388 dated 23.08.2007, gave a cheque of Rs.2,14,530/- dated
23.08.2007 drawn on Punjab National Bank vide receipt
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 2 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:01:08
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
No.56389 dated 23.08.2007 and thereafter, further gave a chequeof Rs.4,69,060/- dated 17.09.2007 drawn at Punjab National Bank
vide receipt No.56991 dated 17.09.2007 and thus, a total sum of
Rs.7,03,590/- is lying deposited with the defendant; that
defendant started demanding illegal amount towards advance
maintenance charges and other charges for the period 01.04.2010
to 31.03.2013 though the possession of the said units was not
handed over to the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs sent a Legal
Notice dated 09.11.2010 demanding to get back their deposited
amount with the defendant, but the defendant did not comply the
said legal notice and sent a false reply; that thereafter the
plaintiffs filed a Complaint No.661/2010 titled as “Santosh
Kumari & Mamta Gandhi v. Vardhman Properties Ltd.” before
the District Consumer Forum, Mehrauli, Delhi which was
withdrawn on 10.08.2018 with the liberty to file the same on the
same cause of action in appropriate forum/Court as the properties
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 3 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:01:16
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
involved were shops and Consumer Protection Act had nojurisdiction in the matter; that thereafter the plaintiffs filed a
Complaint No.39 of 2018 titled as “Santosh Kumari & Mamta
Gandhi v. Vardhman Properties Ltd.” before the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, New Delhi (RERA) which was dismissed
on 11.04.2019 as the complaint was not maintainable before the
Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act,
2016; that thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application before the
South-East District Legal Services Authority for pre-institution
mediation on 27.07.2020, but the defendant did not participate in
the mediation process; that the defendant is liable to refund the
total amount of Rs.17,00,342/- i.e., principal amount of
Rs.7,03,590/- alongwith interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f.
01.10.2007 to 30.11.2021 which comes to Rs.10,97,600/- hence,
the present suit for recovery of Rs.17 Lakhs alongwith pendente-
lite and future interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 4 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:01:26
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
of the suit till the realization of decretal amount.
3. Summons of the suit was issued to defendant and after service of
summons, the defendant filed written statement on 30.11.2022,
taking preliminary objections that the suit was barred by Order 7
Rule 11 CPC for not disclosing any cause of action in favour of
the plaintiffs; that the present suit was hopelessly barred by law of
limitation because as per the plaintiffs, the cause of action firstly
arose on 30.12.2009 when the defendant demanded maintenance
charges from the plaintiffs but the present suit was filed on
05.04.2022 i.e. after passing more than 12 years 3 months
approximately; that the possession of the aforesaid units was
offered to the plaintiffs by the defendant vide Letter dated
30.12.2009, whereby plaintiffs were requested to take the
possession of their units on or before 31.01.2010 after making
payment of the balance dues amounting to Rs.11,96,103/- as well
as maintenance charges amounting to Rs.1,86,628/-; that the
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 5 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:01:33
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
plaintiffs are estopped from reverting from their own consentgiven as per the terms and conditions at the time of signing the
agreement as they failed to make further payment and clear their
dues even after numerous reminders by the defendant; that the
plaintiffs jointly entered into a flat buyer allotment Agreement
dated 18.08.2007 with respect to two shops, being Unit No. T-96
& T-97, Vardhman Central Mall, L.S.C., Nehru Place, Delhi and
the total sale consideration of both the said units was
Rs.16,41,710/-; that the defendant having completed the
construction of the building, offered the plaintiffs to take the
possession of their units on 30.12.2009 and further demanded the
balance dues amounting to Rs.11,96,103/- only along with a sum
of Rs.1,86,628/- only as advance maintenance charges for three
years as agreed vide the said Agreement; that the plaintiff chose
to remain quiet for a considerable time and did not come forward
to clear the dues for allotment of the said units for reasons best
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 6 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:01:41
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
known to them; that the defendant had made innumerable writtenrequests to the plaintiffs from time to time to make the payment
of outstanding dues and to take possession of the two units, vide
letters dated 26.02.2010, 02.03.2010, 29.03.2010, 27.04.2010,
27.05.2010, 26.06.2010, 27.08.2010, 24.09.2010, 27.10.2010 &
20.12.2010, however, even after receiving all the said letters, the
plaintiffs chose to sit quiet and failed to remit the balance amount
and, instead of remitting the contractual dues, chose to file the
false and fictitious suit; that the defendant was left with no
alternative but to cancel the allotment of the said two units and
sent a Letter dated 30.10.2011 cancelling the booking of the
aforesaid two units being Unit No. T-96 & T-97, Vardhman
Central Mall, LSC, Nehru Place, Delhi and further as per the
terms and conditions of the Agreement, refunded an amount of
Rs.2,93,163/- only vide Cheque No. 286258 dated 31.10.2011
drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Nehru Place, New Delhi after
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 7 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:01:48
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
forfeiting 25% of the total cost on account of non-payment ofinstallments.
Issues:
4. Vide order dated 26.07.2023, as per the pleadings, following
issues were framed:
i. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.17
Lakhs as prayed? OPP
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what
rate and for which period? OPP
iii. Whether suit of the plaintiff is within the limitation? OPP
iv. Whether plaintiff is entitled to benefit of Section 14 of The
Limitation Act? OPP
v. Whether the plaintiff committed breach of terms and
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 8 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:01:55
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
condition of the Flat Buyer Allotment Agreement dated18.08.2007, if yes, its effect? OPD
vi. Relief.
Plaintiff’s Evidence:
5. Plaintiffs led evidence and got plaintiff no.2 namely Smt. Mamta
Gandhi examined as PW-1 who deposed by way of affidavit
Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. copy of Agreement
dated 18.08.2007 Ex. PW-1/1; copy of Letter dated 30.08.2007
Ex.PW-1/2A; copy of Letter dated 30.12.2009 Ex. PW-1/2B;
copy of Legal Notice dated 09.11.2010 Ex. PW-1/3; certified
copy of order dated 10.08.2018 Ex. PW-1/4; certified copy of
order dated 11.04.2019 Ex. PW-1/5 and Non-starter report of
mediation Ex. PW-1/6.
6. PW-1 deposed that both she and plaintiff no.1, had jointly booked
two units no. T-96 & T-97 in Vardhman Central Mall, L.S.C.,
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 9 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:02:04
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
Nehru Vihar, New Delhi and the Agreement dated 18.08.2007Ex.PW-1/1 was executed with the defendant in this regard. PW-1
further deposed that she and plaintiff no.1 had deposited a total
sum of Rs.7,03,590/- vide receipt no. 56388 dated 23.08.2007,
cheque dated 23.08.2007 and cheque dated 17.09.2007. PW-1
further deposed that the defendant started demanding illegal
amount towards advance maintenance charges, etc. for the period
01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 vide Letters dated 30.08.2007 and
30.12.2009 though the possession of the shops was not handed
over to them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent Legal Notice dated
09.11.2010 Ex. PW-1/3 demanding their deposited amount from
the defendant, but the defendant did not comply and sent a false
reply. Thereafter, a complaint no.661/2010 titled as “Santosh
Kumari & Mamta Gandhi v. Vardhman Properties Ltd.” was filed
before the District Consumer Forum, Mehrauli, Delhi which was
withdrawn on 10.08.2018 vide order Ex. PW-1/4 with liberty to
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 10 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:02:11
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
file the same in appropriate Forum/Court. Thereafter, a complaintno.39/2018 titled as “Santosh Kumar & Mamta Gandhi v.
Vardhman Properties Ltd.” was filed before the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, New Delhi (RERA) which was dismissed
vide order dated 11.04.2019 Ex.PW-1/5 (colly.) being not
maintainable before the Authority under the Real Estate
(Regularization & Development) Act, 2016.
7. PW-1 further deposed that thereafter one application was filed
before the South-East District Legal Services Authority for pre-
institution mediation on 27.07.2020, but the defendant did not
participate in the mediation process vide Non-Starter Report
Ex.PW-1/6.
8. PW-1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for defendant.
During the cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the defendant had
first time offered to take the possession of the shops in the year
2009-10. PW-1 was asked a pointed question that in terms of
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 11 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:02:17
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
Agreement Ex. PW-1/1, maintenance charges of Rs.120/- per sq.feet in advance were required to be paid by the plaintiffs to which
she answered that the terms and conditions of the said agreement
were not read in detail at the time of signing the same.
9. On further cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the payment of
allied charges of Rs.2,57,980/- as mentioned in schedule of
installment on page no.3 of the Agreement Ex. PW-1/1 was not
made because the plaintiffs were not interested in continuing with
the deal and wanted the amount refunded from the defendant.
10. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the aforesaid payment was not
made because plaintiffs were not having sufficient amount for
making the payment. She further denied the suggestion that she
had signed the Agreement Ex. PW-1/1 after reading and
understanding the same. Thereafter, during cross-examination
recorded on 30.03.2024, learned counsel for defendant confronted
PW-1 with letters and postal receipts Ex. PW-1/DX-1 (colly.) to
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 12 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:02:26
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
Ex. PW-1/DX-11 (colly.). After seeing the same, PW-1 stated thatthe said letters were never received by them though the addresses
mentioned on the said letters i.e. 9-B, Vikrant Apartments, Sector
13, Rohini, Delhi was their correct address. PW-1 further denied
that the defendant had sent a cheque of Rs.2,93,163/- on
31.10.2011 on the said address. She further voluntarily stated that
the said flat was in possession of her uncle since 2014-15.
Admittedly, the defendant was not informed about shifting from
the said flat. The defendant was also not informed regarding their
current address.
Defendant’s Evidence:
11. Thereafter, defendant led evidence and got Mr. Udesh Kumar,
authorized representative, examined as DW-1who deposed by way
of affidavit Ex. DW-1/1 and relied upon the documents i.e. copy
of reminder/letter dated 26.02.2010 Ex. DW-1/A, which was
already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX-1 (colly.) during cross-
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 13 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:02:36
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
examination of PW-1; copy of reminder/ letter dated 02.03.2010Ex. DW-1/B, which was already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX-2
(colly.) during cross-examination of PW-1; copy of reminder/letter
dated 29.03.2010 Ex. DW-1/C, which was already exhibited as
Ex. PW-1/DX-3 (colly.) during cross-examination of PW-1; copy
of reminder/letter dated 27.04.2010 Ex. DW-1/D, which was
already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX-4 (colly.) during cross-
examination of PW-1; copy of reminder/ letter dated 27.05.2010
Ex. DW-1/E, which was already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX-5
(colly.) during cross-examination of PW-1; copy of reminder/letter
dated 26.06.2010 Ex. DW-1/F, which was already exhibited as Ex.
PW-1/DX-6 (colly.) during cross-examination of PW-1; copy of
reminder/letter dated 27.08.2010 Ex. DW-1/G, which was already
exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX-7 (colly.) during cross-examination of
PW-1; copy of reminder/ letter dated 24.09.2010 Ex. DW-1/H,
which was already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX-8 (colly.) during
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 14 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:02:42
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
cross-examination of PW-1; copy of reminder/letter dated27.10.2010 Ex. DW-1/I, which was already exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/DX-9 (colly.) during cross-examination of PW-1; copy
of reminder/letter dated 20.12.2010 Ex. DW-1/J, which was
already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/DX-10 (colly.) during cross-
examination of PW-1; copy of cancellation of allotment dated
31.10.2011 Ex. DW-1/K, which was already exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/DX-11 (colly.) during cross-examination of PW-1; copy
of Occupancy Letter Ex. DW-1/L; copy of Written Statement filed
by defendant in Consumer Forum Mark-DW-1/Z-1 and copy of
Written Statement filed by defendant before RERA
Mark-DW-1/Z-2.
12. Mr. Udesh Kumar (DW-1) deposed that the present suit is
hopelessly barred by law of limitation for the reason that the cause
of action firstly arose on 30.12.2009 when the defendant
demanded maintenance charges from the plaintiffs, whereas the
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 15 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:02:48
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
present suit was filed on 05.04.2022 after more than 12 yearsthree months approximately.
13. DW-1 further deposed that offer of possession of the units was
made to the plaintiffs vide Letter dated 30.12.2009 requesting to
take possession on or before 31.01.2010 after making payment of
the dues amounting to Rs.11,96,103/- as well as maintenance
charges amounting to Rs.1,86,628/-. DW-1 further deposed that
the plaintiffs had agreed to abide with the terms and conditions as
contained in Agreement dated 18.08.2007 and agreed to pay the
allied charges for a sum of Rs.2,57,983/- which was payable at
the time of offer of the possession. The defendant after
completion of construction offered the plaintiffs to take
possession of their units on 30.12.2009 and demanded the balance
dues amounting to Rs.11,96,103/- alongwith a sum of
Rs.1,86,628/- towards advance maintenance charges for three
years as agreed vide the said Agreement, but the plaintiffs did not
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 16 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:02:55
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
come forward to clear the dues for allotment of the said units.Further the defendant had made innumerable written requests to
the plaintiffs from time to time to make payment of the
outstanding dues and to take the possession of units vide Letters
Ex. DW-1/A to Ex. DW-1/J. However, the plaintiffs failed to
remit the balance amount and instead filed the false and fictitious
suit.
14. DW-1 further deposed that the plaintiffs failed to perform their
contractual obligations and under the given circumstances, the
defendant was left with no alternative but to cancel the allotment
of the said two units. The defendant sent Letter dated 31.10.2011
cancelling the booking of the said two units and as per the terms
and conditions of the Agreement, refunded a sum of Rs.2,93,163/-
vide cheque no.286258 dated 31.10.2011 drawn on State Bank of
Mysore, Nehru Place, New Delhi after forfeiting 25% of the total
cost on account of non-payment of installments. DW-1 also relied
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 17 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:03:04
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
upon the copy of the Cancellation of Allotment dated31.10.2011,Ex. DW1/K, copy of Occupancy Letter Ex. DW-1/L,
copy of reply filed in District Consumer Forum Ex. DW-1/M
(colly.) and copy of reply filed in RERA Ex. DW-1/N (colly).
15. DW-1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for plaintiff,
during which, he stated that he had joined job with the defendant
in the year 1966. He denied that he was not authorized to depose
as no Board Resolution or Authority Letter in his favour was filed
on record. DW-1 could not remember when Fire NOC of the
project i.e. Vardhman Central Mall, L.S.C., Nehru Vihar, New
Delhi was obtained.
16. On further cross-examination, DW-1 stated that the stipulated date
of completion of the project was in December, 2009. He further
denied the suggestion that the construction was not complete till
December, 2009 or that the plaintiffs’ units were illegally
cancelled by the defendant.
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 18 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:03:11
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
Final Arguments:
17. I heard final arguments advanced by Sh. O.P. Gupta, learned
counsel for the plaintiffs and Sh. Naveen Dabas, learned counsel
for the defendant. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for plaintiff contended that the defendant had started
demanding advance maintenance charges without handing over
the possession of the units to the plaintiffs. Further, the building
was not complete, so there was no question of handing over the
possession to the plaintiffs and therefore, no occasion arose to
demand maintenance charges from the plaintiffs. Learned counsel
for plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiffs filed the complaint
before the District Consumer Forum as well as RERA which were
not having jurisdiction to decide the claim and therefore, the
present suit was filed before the competent court of jurisdiction.
18. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant contended that the suit is
hopelessly barred by limitation and plaintiffs are not entitled for
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 19 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:03:18
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
any relief as they committed breach of terms and conditions ofAgreement dated 18.08.2007 in not making the payment of dues
and taking over possession of their units and accordingly, the
allotment of units was cancelled and 25% of total cost was
forfeited as per the Agreement.
19. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon Ketan Parekh v.
Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr., AIR 2012
SC 683, Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board and Ors. v. M/s.
Mohanlal and Company, AIR 2016 SC 3592, State of Manipur
and Ors. v. Koting Lamkang, (2019) 10 SCC 408, Ethopian
Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo, AIR 2011 SC 3495 and M.P.
Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise,(2015) 7
SCC 58. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant
relied upon Satish Batra v. Sudhir Rawal, (2013) 1 SCC 345. Both
the parties also filed brief written submissions.
Analysis & Findings:
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 20 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:03:28
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
20. Having heard the submissions and perused the material available
on record, my findings on the aforesaid issues, in a logical
sequence, are as under:
Issue No. 4
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to benefit of Section 14 of The
Limitation Act? OPP
21. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the defendant
contended that the present suit is hopelessly barred by law of
limitation for the reason that the cause of action firstly arose on
30.12.2009 when the defendant demanded maintenance charges
from the plaintiffs, whereas the present suit was filed on
05.04.2022 i.e., after more than 12 years three months
approximately.
22. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that
plaintiffs bona-fide and in good faith, had been prosecuting the
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 21 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:03:33
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
claim before the District Forum and RERA which were nothaving jurisdiction to decide the claim. Further, the time during
which proceedings were pending before District Forum and
RERA shall be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
1963, and therefore the suit was filed within limitation period in
the competent Court.
23. Here, it is apposite to extract relevant portion of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 which is as under:-
14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in
court without jurisdiction –
(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the
time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting
with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in
a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against
the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding
relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in
good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction
or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 22 of 50
Digitally signed
by KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:03:40 +0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
(2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Explanation: For the purposes of this section,-
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil
proceeding was pending, the day on which that
proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended
shall both be counted;
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be
deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding; and
(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be
deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of
jurisdiction.
24. In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary
Organization Department, (2008) 7 SCC 169, the principles
pertaining to applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act
were discussed extensively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
following was laid down:-
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 23 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:03:50
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
“Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with exclusion of time
of proceeding bona-fide in a Court without jurisdiction. On
analysis of the said section, it becomes evident that the
following conditions must be satisfied before Section 14 can
be pressed into service:
(1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil
proceedings prosecuted by the same party;(2) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due
diligence and in good faith;
(3) The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of
jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;(4) The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must
relate to the same matter in issue; and(5) Both the proceedings are in a Court.”
25. It was also laid down by the Apex Court that the provisions of
this Section must be interpreted and applied in a manner that
furthers the cause of justice, rather than aborts the proceedings at
hand and the time taken diligently pursuing a remedy in a wrong
Court, should be excluded.
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 24 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:03:59
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
26. Similarly, in M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central
Excise, (2015) 7 SCC 58, the Apex Court discussed the phrases
“due diligence” and “in good faith” for the purposes of invocation
of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to observe that the said
phrases only mean that the party who invokes Section 14 should
not be guilty of negligence, lapse or inaction. Further, there
should be no pretended mistake intentionally made with a view to
delaying the proceedings or harassing the opposite party.
27. In P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India, (2000) 5 SCC 355, the Apex
Court made a distinction between “Civil Court” and “court” and
expanded the scope of Section 14 of the Limitation Act stating
that any authority or tribunal having the trappings of a Court
would be a “court” within the meaning of Section 14. Further, for
Section 14 to apply, two conditions have to be met- First, the
primary proceeding must be a suit, appeal or application filed in a
Civil Court and Second, it is only when it comes to excluding
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 25 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:04:06
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
time in an abortive proceeding that the word “Court” has beenexpanded to include proceedings before the Tribunals.
28. As far as any Authority or Tribunal having the trappings of a Court
is concerned, long back, the Apex Court in Associated Cement
Companies Ltd. v. P. N. Sharma and Anr., 1965 AIR 1595 had
held that the requirements of procedure which is followed in
courts and the possession of subsidiary powers which are given
to courts to try the cases before them are described as trappings
of the courts, but the consideration about the presence of all or
some of the trappings of a court is really not decisive. The
presence of some of the trappings may assist the determination of
the question as to whether the power exercised by the authority
which possesses the said trappings, is the judicial power of the
State or not. The main and the basic test however, is whether the
adjudicating power which a particular authority is empowered to
exercise, has been conferred on it by a statute and can be
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 26 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:04:12
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
described as a part of the State’s inherent power exercised indischarging its judicial function. Thus, it should be constituted by
the State and it should be invested with any part of the judicial
functions of the State but should not discharge purely
administrative or executive duties. Further, the other incidents of
the investiture of the ‘trappings of a court’ are authority to
determine matters in cases initiated by parties, sitting in public,
power to compel attendance of witnesses and to examine them on
oath. In fact, such authority or tribunal is under a duty to act
judicially.
29. In view of above-mentioned legal propositions, there is no doubt
that a District Forum constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer
Protection Act,1986 (now repealed by the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 which came into effect on 20.07.2020) and RERA
constituted under Section 20 (1) of the Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016, are having trappings of a Court.
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 27 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:04:19
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
30. A bare perusal of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986
like Section 12 (Manner in which complaint shall be made),
Section 13 (Procedure on admission of complaint), Section 13 (4)
(same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining them on oath; the
discovery and production of any document or other material
object producible as evidence; the reception of evidence on
affidavits; the requisitioning of the report of the concerned
analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other
relevant source and issuing of any commission for the
examination of any witness.), Section 13 (5) (proceedings before
the District Forum are deemed to be a judicial proceeding within
the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and District Forum is deemed to be a Civil Court for the
purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 28 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:04:27
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
Criminal Procedure, 1973.), Section 14 (Findings of the DistrictForum), Section 25 (Enforcement of orders) and Section 27
(Penalties) would leave no doubt that District Forum was having
all the trappings of a court. Furthermore, Section 27 (2) conferred
the powers of Judicial Magistrate first class for the trial of
offences under the Act while deeming it to be Judicial Magistrate
first class for the purpose of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
31. Similarly, provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016, like Section 31 (Filing of complaints),
Section 34 (Functions of Authority), Section 35 (Power to call for
information, conduct investigations), Section 35 (2) (Powers of
Civil Court in certain respects as enumerated therein), Section 36
(Power to issue interim orders), Section 37 (Powers to issue
directions) and Section 38 (Power to impose penalty or interest)
amply demonstrate the quasi-judicial nature of RERA. The
authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 29 of 50
Digitally signed
by KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:04:34 +0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
judgment dated 11.11.2021 in Civil Appeal No(s) 6745-6749 of2021 titled as M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
v. State of U.P. and Ors., also dealt elaborately with the quasi-
judicial nature of RERA, besides other issues.
32. In view of afore-discussed legal propositions, it is evident that
provisions stipulated under Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
1963 are applicable to the proceedings conducted before the
District Forum as well RERA.
33. As per the aforementioned testimonies and material available on
record, it is evident that both the plaintiffs jointly booked two
units being unit no. T-96 & T-97 in Vardhman Central Mall,
L.S.C., Nehru Vihar, Delhi and Agreement dated 18.08.2007
Ex.PW-1/1 was executed between both the parties. The defendant
sent Letter dated 30.12.2009 Ex. PW-1/2B whereby plaintiffs
were requested to take the possession of their units on or before
31.01.2010 after making payment of the balance dues amounting
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 30 of 50
Digitally signed
by KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
Date:
NARAYAN 2025.08.23
14:04:41
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
to Rs.11,96,103/- as well as maintenance charges amounting toRs.1,86,628/-. The plaintiffs instead sent Legal Notice dated
09.11.2010 Ex. PW-1/3, demanding back their deposited amount
which was replied by the defendant vide Reply/Notice dated
11.11.2010. Plaintiffs filed complaint before the District Forum
on 08.12.2010.
34. It is, therefore, clear that the cause of action to seek recovery of
the amount deposited with the defendant arose when Legal Notice
dated 09.11.2010 Ex. PW-1/3 was sent by the plaintiffs
consequent upon which plaintiffs filed complaint before the
District Forum.
35. The said complaint was withdrawn on 10.08.2018 vide certified
copy of order Ex. PW-1/4 of the District Forum.
36. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed complaint before the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (RERA) which was dismissed vide order
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 31 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:04:47
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
dated 11.04.2019 Ex. PW-1/5.
37. Thereafter, presumably under Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, plaintiffs filed an application before the South-
East District Legal Services Authority for pre-institution
mediation on 27.07.2020, but the defendant did not participate in
the mediation process vide Non-Starter Report dated 17.12.2020
Ex. PW-1/6.
38. Consequently, plaintiffs filed the present suit for recovery under
Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on 05.04.2022
which was transferred to this Court vide order dated 08.02.2023
passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, South-
East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi after withdrawing the
same from the Court of learned District Judge, (Commercial)
(Digital Court-07) South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
as the dispute was not a commercial dispute as defined under
Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 32 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:04:53
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
39. In the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is evident that
the plaintiffs had been prosecuting civil proceedings against the
defendant with due diligence and in good faith before the District
Forum and RERA which were not entertained due to defect of
jurisdiction. In my considered opinion, all the five conditions as
laid down in Consolidated Engg. (supra) case are met and
plaintiffs, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are
entitled to claim exclusion of time so spent before the District
Forum and RERA in computing the period of limitation for filing
the present suit.
40. As observed above, plaintiffs filed complaint before the District
Forum on 08.12.2010 which was withdrawn on 10.08.2018.
Thereafter, complaint was filed before RERA on 24.09.2018
which was dismissed on 11.04.2019. Therefore, the aforesaid
period stands excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
1963 for the purpose of computation of period of limitation for
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 33 of 50
Digitally signed
by KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
Date:
NARAYAN 2025.08.23
14:05:01
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
filing the present suit.
41. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 3
(3) Whether suit of the plaintiff is within the limitation? OPP
42. As observed above, the cause of action to institute the present suit
for recovery had arisen on 09.11.2010. As per Article 113 in the
Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribed period of
limitation for filing the suit is three years which begins to run
when the right to sue accrues.
43. Vide findings on issue no. 4, the period w.e.f. 08.12.2010 to
10.08.2018 and period w.e.f. 24.09.2018 to 11.04.2019 stand
excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 34 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:05:08
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
44. After 11.04.2019, plaintiffs filed an application on 27.07.2020
before the South-East District Legal Services Authority under
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, for pre-
institution mediation however, the defendant did not participate in
the mediation process vide Non-Starter Report dated 17.12.2020
Ex. PW-1/6 consequent upon which the present suit was filed on
05.04.2022.
45. As stipulated under second Proviso appended to Section 12A (3)
of the said Act, the period during which the parties remained
occupied with the pre-institution mediation shall not be computed
for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
46. It is, thus, clear that after accrual of cause of action on
09.11.2010, the period w.e.f. 08.12.2010 to 10.08.2018 (7 years 8
months 4 days) and from 24.09.2018 to 11.04.2019 (6 months 18
days) stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
1963. Further, the period w.e.f. 27.07.2020 to 17.12.2020 (4
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 35 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:05:15
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
months 22 days) stands excluded under second Proviso appendedto Section 12A (3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
47. From the date of accrual of cause of action i.e. 09.11.2010 till the
date of filing of the suit on 05.04.2022, total period spent is 11
years 4 months 27 days out of which aforesaid total period of 8
years 7 months 14 days stand excluded.
48. Therefore, the present suit filed on 05.04.2022 is within limitation
period of three years in terms of Article 113 in the Schedule of the
Limitation Act, 1963.
49. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue No.5
Whether the plaintiff committed breach of terms and condition of the
Flat Buyer Allotment Agreement dated 18.08.2007, if yes, its effect.
OPD
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 36 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:05:23
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
50. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the defendant. To
discharge the same, Mr. Udesh Kumar (DW-1) deposed that he
was authorized vide Board Resolution to depose in the present
case. Board Resolution was filed on 17.11.2022 on record. He
further deposed that the Agreement dated 18.08.2007 Ex. PW-1/1
was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant in respect
of two units i.e., units no. T-96 & T-97 in Vardhman Central Mall,
L.S.C., Nehru Vihar, New Delhi whereby plaintiffs agreed to
abide by the terms and conditions of the said Agreement and
agreed to pay allied charges of Rs.2,57,983/- which was payable
at the time of offering of the possession. Further, after completion
of the construction, the defendant offered the plaintiffs to take
possession of their units on 30.12.2009 and also demanded
balance dues amounting to Rs.11,96,103/- alongwith sum of
Rs.1,86,628/- towards advance maintenance charges for three
years which was agreed as per the said Agreement. However, the
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 37 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:05:32
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
plaintiffs did not come forward to clear the dues despite variouswritten requests made by the defendant.
51. DW-1 further deposed that since the plaintiffs failed to perform
their contractual obligations, the defendant was left with no
alternative but to cancel the allotment of the said two units vide
Letter dated 31.10.2011 Ex. DW-1/K. Further, as per the agreed
terms and conditions of Agreement Ex. PW-1/1, defendant
refunded a sum of Rs.2,93,163/- vide cheque no.286258 dated
31.10.2011 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Nehru Place, New
Delhi to the plaintiffs after forfeiting 25% of the total cost on
account of non-payment of installments.
52. The execution of Agreement Ex. PW-1/1 is not in dispute. As per
the ‘Schedule of Installment’ contained therein, a sum of
Rs.2,34,000/- was to be paid at the time of booking and balance
amount was to be paid on or before the offer of possession
alongwith allied charges of Rs.2,57,983/-. Further, as per the
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 38 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:05:38
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
terms under the head ‘Payment of Common Service Charges etc.,’the plaintiffs agreed to pay service and maintenance charges in
advance after notice to take possession is sent to them. It was also
agreed that the defendant will maintain the building only upto 36
months from the date of offering the possession. Further, the
prescribed common maintenance and service charges were agreed
to be @ Rs.120/- per square feet per year which was to be paid in
advance. The Agreement also contained a clause under the head
‘Possession only after Full payment’ which stipulated that under
no circumstances, the possession of the property shall be given
unless and until all payment required has been made. Further, as
soon as the unit is notified by the Promoters as complete and
ready for occupation, the Buyer shall pay all arrears demanded by
the Promoters within ten days of the registered notice served
individually upon him.
53. Regarding completion of building and handing over the
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 39 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:05:45
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
possession, no definite date was agreed and handing over ofpossession was subject to payment, availability of building
material and other compliances, etc. by the municipal authorities.
It was also stipulated that the defendant will only apply for
Completion Certificate.
54. Vide Letter dated 30.12.2009 Ex. PW-1/2B, the defendant offered
possession of units to the plaintiffs after payment of dues of
Rs.11,96,103/- and maintenance charges including service tax for
the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 amounting to Rs.1,86,628/-
on or before 31.01.2010. However, the plaintiffs sent Legal
Notice dated 09.11.2010 Ex. PW-1/3, alleging illegal demand of
maintenance charges and other charges without handing over
possession.
55. During the cross-examination, PW-1 was asked about the terms
of Agreement Ex. PW-1/1 regarding payment of maintenance
charges @ Rs.120/- per square feet in advance, to which she
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 40 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:05:51
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
replied that she had not read the terms and conditions in detail atthe time of putting her signatures. On further cross-examination,
PW-1 stated that payment of allied charges of Rs.2,57,983/- as
mentioned in Schedule of Installment in Agreement Ex. PW-1/1
was not made because plaintiffs were not interested in continuing
with the deal and wanted their amount refunded.
56. PW-1 was also confronted with Letters Ex. PW-1/DX-1 to
Ex.PW-1/DX-11 which she refused to have received or served
upon the plaintiffs. PW-1 further admitted that the address
mentioned on the aforesaid letters i.e. 9-B, Vikrant Apartments,
Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi-110085 was their correct address though
she voluntarily said that the said flat belonged to her mother and
was lying vacant since 2010. She further denied that the
defendant had sent cheque of Rs.2,93,163/- on 31.10.2011 on the
address of aforesaid flat. Admittedly, plaintiffs never informed the
defendant about shifting from the aforesaid flat nor their present
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 41 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:05:58
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
address was informed to the defendant.
57. It is also clear from the Legal Notice Ex. PW-1/3 that the
plaintiffs demanded refund of Rs.7,03,590/- with interest alleging
that the defendant had started demanding illegal amount towards
maintenance charges and other charges without handing over the
possession to them. However, as observed above, advance
payment of maintenance charges and service charges was duly
agreed by the plaintiffs vide Agreement Ex.PW-1/1.
58. As far as offer of possession of the units made by the defendant
vide Letter Ex. PW-1/2B dated 30.12.2009 and payment of
maintenance charges of Rs.1,86,628/- is concerned, it is clear
from the Occupancy Certificate Ex. DW-1/L that the defendant
had applied for Occupancy Certificate by sending Notice of
Completion dated 14.01.2010 to DDA consequent upon which the
aforesaid Occupancy Certificate dated 12.04.2010 Ex. DW-1/L
was issued.
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 42 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:06:05
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
59. It is thus clear that the defendant offered possession of the units to
the plaintiffs to be taken on or before 31.01.2010 after making
payment of balance dues and completing other documentary
formalities. The defendant also applied for Occupancy Certificate
vide Notice of Completion dated 14.01.2010. A number of
reminders vide Letter dated 26.02.2010 Ex. DW-1/A to Letters
dated 20.12.2010 Ex. DW-1/J were sent to the plaintiffs, but to no
avail and resultantly the allotment of units was cancelled by the
defendant vide Letter dated 30.10.2011 Ex. DW-1/K. It is thus
clear that at the time of cancellation of allotment of units, the
building was complete for possession well before the said date.
60. In the afore-discussed facts and circumstances, it is clear that the
plaintiffs committed breach of agreed terms and conditions of
Agreement Ex. PW-1/1 in not making payment of advance
maintenance charges and common service charges for obtaining
possession of their units. No plausible or cogent reason could be
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 43 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:06:11
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
brought on record by the plaintiffs for not making payment ofadvance maintenance and common service charges as demanded
by the defendant and therefore, the cancellation of allotment of
units vide Letter Ex. DW-1/K dated 31.10.2011 was in terms of
the Agreement Ex. PW-1/1.
61. As far as forfeiture of 25% of total cost deposited with the
defendant is concerned, in Satish Batra (supra) case, the Apex
Court referred the case titled as Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills v.
Tata Air Craft Ltd. (1969) 3 SCC 522 wherein, considering the
scope of the term “earnest”, certain principles were laid down
which are extracted as under:
“21. From a review of the decisions cited above, the
following principles emerge regarding ‘earnest’:
(1) It must be given at the moment at which the
contract is concluded.
(2) It represents a guarantee that the contract will
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 44 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:06:17
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
be fulfilled or, in other words, “earnest” is given
to bind the contract.
(3) It is part of the purchase price when that
transaction is carried out.
(4) It is forfeited when the transaction falls
through by reason of the default or failure of the
purchaser.
(5) Unless there is anything to the contrary in
the terms of the contract, on default committed
by the buyer, the seller is entitled to forfeit the
earnest.”
62. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in Agreement Ex. PW1/1,
under the head ‘Schedule of Installment’, it was agreed if no
payment is received within the stipulated period given in the
Installment Call Notice, the allotment will be cancelled and the
whole of earnest money i.e. 25% of the total cost of the unit
already received will be forfeited and only the balance amount
will be refunded without any interest. Similarly, under the head
‘Completion of Building’, it was agreed that in case the building
does not get completed or the space to be acquired by the buyer is
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 45 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:06:23
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
not constructed, amount received by the Promoters shall berefunded to the buyer without interest.
63. Thus, it is apparent that the amount of Rs.7,03,590/- deposited
with the defendant was ‘earnest money’ which, as per the terms of
Agreement, was to ensure fulfillment of terms of Agreement by
the plaintiffs.
64. Accordingly, forfeiture of 25% of the total cost of Rs.16,41,710/-
on account of non-payment by the plaintiffs was also in terms of
the aforesaid Agreement which was duly communicated to the
plaintiffs. Upon perusal of Letter Ex. PW-1/K, it is also evident
that the cancellation of units was without prejudice to the
complaint pending before the District Forum which indicate that
defendant was aware about the proceedings pending before the
District Forum and therefore the fact of cancellation of units
would certainly have been brought to the notice of the plaintiffs.
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 46 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:06:29
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
65. The defendant successfully discharged the onus placed on it and
therefore this issue is decided in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.1
Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.17 Lakhs as
prayed? OPP
66. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs claimed refund of total amount of Rs.17,00,342/- i.e.,
principal amount of Rs.7,03,590/- alongwith interest @ 10% per
annum w.e.f. 01.10.2007 to 30.11.2021 amounting to
Rs.10,97,600/- which was rounded off to Rs.17,00,000/-.
However, the calculation done by the plaintiffs is wrong as the
total claimed amount as per the plaintiffs comes to Rs.18,01,190/-
and not Rs.17,00,342/-.
67. In view of findings of issue no.5, it is evident that the fault lies on
the part of the plaintiffs in not taking over the possession of the
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 47 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:06:36
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
units after making payment of balance dues and maintenance andservice charges in terms of Agreement Ex. PW-1/1. Accordingly,
the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the aforesaid amount to
Rs.17,00,000/- from the defendant. Otherwise also, it was not
explained on what basis, interest @ 10% per annum amounting to
Rs.10,97,600/- was claimed which in itself, is more than the
principal amount of Rs.7,03,590/-. It is also clear in view of
findings of issues no. 3 & 4 that the delay in filing the suit
occurred due to the plaintiffs filing claims in wrong Forums to
seek recovery of the amount and therefore, the claim of interest
for the said entire duration is not justifiable.
68. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the plaintiffs are not entitled
to seek recovery of the claimed amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from
the defendant. However, as the defendant, after forfeiting 25% of
the total cost, had refunded a sum of Rs.2,93,163/- by way of
cheque dated 31.10.2011 and there is no material available on
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 48 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:06:41
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
record to indicate if the aforesaid cheque was ever encashed bythe plaintiffs, in the given circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled
to receive the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,93,163/- only from the
defendant.
69. The issue is accordingly decided.
Issue No.2
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate and for
which period? OPP
70. In view of findings on the aforesaid issues, the plaintiffs are not
entitled to claim interest @ 10% per annum on the principal
amount of Rs.7,03,590/-, however, in the given facts and
circumstances, it will be reasonable if the plaintiffs are paid
interest @ 6% per annum on the aforesaid amount of
Rs.2,93,163/- from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 05.04.2022
till its realization.
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 49 of 50
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.08.23
14:06:48
+0530District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
71. The issue is accordingly decided.
Relief:
72. In view of my issue-wise findings, the suit is partly decreed. The
defendant is directed to pay the sum of Rs.2,93,163/- to the
plaintiffs alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the present suit i.e., 05.04.2022 till its realization.
Decree-Sheet be prepared accordingly.
73. File be consigned to Records after necessary compliance.
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
(Announced in open KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
Court on 23.08.2025) 2025.08.23
14:06:56
+0530
(Kuldeep Narayan)
District Judge-02, (S-E),
Court Room No.615,
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ No.337/2022 Santosh Kumari & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 50 of 50
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket