Monu Mehta Vs. M.C.D.

Monu Mehta vs M.C.D.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 26, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703449

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/703449
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mr. Manmohan Sarin, J.
Decided On: Sep 26, 2001
Case Number: CW No. 4721/2000 and CMs. 7328 and 9664/2000
Subject: Commercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Housing - Allotment--Petitioner successful bidder for the allotment of parking site--Petitioner deposited security deposit and license fee--Allotment could not be made--Entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% for the entire period amount withheld--Petition disposed of--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226...

Key legal issue: Commercial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Monu Mehta

Advocate Mr. B.L. Wali, Adv

Respondent

M.C.D.

Advocate Mr. Anil Grover, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2002(61)DRJ82

Excerpt

housing - allotment--petitioner successful bidder for the allotment of parking site--petitioner deposited security deposit and license fee--allotment could not be made--entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% for the entire period amount withheld--petition disposed of--constitution of india, 1950, article 226. ; payment of simple interest @ 9% per annum from 1.4.2000 up to 24.10.2000 i.e. approximately for a period of six months, would meet the ends of justice. let the petitioner pay to the petitioner simple interest on rs. 8,16,860/- @ 9% per annum for a period of six months. the amount be paid within four weeks. - - 2. petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent to allot the petitioner an alternate parking site since the respondent failed to hand over the physical possession of the parking site at bahadur shah zafar marg......the site to the petitioner for which the petitioner was willing. it just transpired that another site suitable and acceptable to the petitioner could not be found. hence there was unavoidable delay in returning the amount. it is stated that on 23.3.2000, petitioner had given a legal notice, which was received on 30.3.2000. in the event, respondent refunded the entire amount on 24.10.2000.6. mr. wali has urged before me that the period ought to be computed form 9.11.1999 because the petitioner neither received the benefit of the parking site and his money was withheld for no fault of his. mr. wali also submits that on 11.11.1999, petitioner had offered to pay the revised license fee in respect of alternate site and in case the same was not acceptable, the deposit should have been refunded. be that as it may efforts were being made by both the parties to find an amicable solution by locating a suitable site.in these facts and circumstances, i am of the view that payment of simple interest @ 9% per annum from 1.4.2000 up to 24.10.2000 i.e. approximately for a period of six months, would meet the ends of justice. let the petitioner pay to the petitioner simple interest on rs.8,16,860/- @ 9% per annum for a period of six months. the amount be paid within four weeks.writ petition stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent to allot the petitioner an alternate parking site since the respondent failed to hand over the physical possession of the parking site at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg.

3. Respondent/MCD had invited tenders for the said parking site on 18.3.1999, for a period of two years. Petitioner was the successful bidder and his bid was accepted. Petitioner deposited Rs.2,85,600/- as security being 10 per cent of the tender amount. Petitioner also deposited security of Rs.5,21,400/-, equivalent to six months license fee. Petitioner also paid in addition one month's license fee, in advance, of Rs.86,900/-, making it a total of Rs.8,16,860/-.

4. Respondent on account of certain protests from the adjoining occupants of the buildings decided that the area should be a free parking rather than a charged parking. In the event, respondent did not allot and hand over the site. As per the counsel for the petitioner, petitioner's money was wrongfully retained by the respondent for a period from 9.11.1999 to 24.10.2000, causing financial loss to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Grover, counsel for the respondent/MCD on the other hand has pointed out that efforts were being made to allot the site to the petitioner for which the petitioner was willing. It just transpired that another site suitable and acceptable to the petitioner could not be found. Hence there was unavoidable delay in returning the amount. It is stated that on 23.3.2000, petitioner had given a legal notice, which was received on 30.3.2000. In the event, respondent refunded the entire amount on 24.10.2000.

6. Mr. Wali has urged before me that the period ought to be computed form 9.11.1999 because the petitioner neither received the benefit of the parking site and his money was withheld for no fault of his. Mr. Wali also submits that on 11.11.1999, petitioner had offered to pay the revised license fee in respect of alternate site and in case the same was not acceptable, the deposit should have been refunded. Be that as it may efforts were being made by both the parties to find an amicable solution by locating a suitable site.

In these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that payment of simple interest @ 9% per annum from 1.4.2000 up to 24.10.2000 i.e. approximately for a period of six months, would meet the ends of justice. Let the petitioner pay to the petitioner simple interest on Rs.8,16,860/- @ 9% per annum for a period of six months. The amount be paid within four weeks.

Writ petition stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Monu Mehta vs M.C.D. Same Subject Commercial Same Judge Mr. Manmohan Sarin, J.

Commercial