Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from three writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the cancellation of lease allotments by CIDCO for allegedly failing to pay delayed payment charges. The petitioners were allottees of commercial plots in Sector A-1, NH Kartik, New Nashik, under allotment letters dated 08.12.2005 for Shivaji and Kalpana and 06.03.2006 for Waman. The total lease premiums ranged from approximately Rs. 9.65 lakh to Rs. 17.53 lakh, payable in instalments after an initial earnest money deposit of Rs. 1 lakh. The petitioners made various payments over time, with the last payments for Shivaji and Kalpana recorded on 18.12.2008, while Waman made payments up to 18.10.2010. CIDCO did not contemporaneously object to the delayed payments, and its own affidavit admitted that it took the part payment into consideration and called upon the petitioner to comply with further terms. Between 2006 and 2010, the petitioners repeatedly requested CIDCO to remove encroachments on the plots. In March 2010, internal CIDCO communications noted that the full lease premium had been paid and steps were required for execution of lease agreements. However, CIDCO later claimed it had sent a demand letter dated 20.07.2010 for delayed payment charges, which the petitioners denied receiving. A subsequent letter dated 22.09.2010 from Shivaji objected to the DPC demand and to the failure to hand over possession. CIDCO relied on a further letter dated 17.08.2012 rejecting exemption from interest, but the petitioners disputed service. On 13.07.2016, CIDCO cancelled the allotments and forfeited 25% of the deposited amounts. The petitioners filed the writ petitions and obtained ad-interim stay on cancellation and restraint on third-party allotment. During the proceedings, CIDCO furnished calculations claiming DPC with interest at 16% per annum under Resolution No. 8840, while the petitioners submitted their own computation without prejudice. The main legal issues were whether CIDCO had waived the delay by accepting payments without protest, whether the cancellation was valid absent proper service of demand, and whether DPC and interest were payable. The petitioners argued waiver and lack of notice; CIDCO justified cancellation based on alleged non-payment of DPC. The court recorded the facts and arguments but the provided excerpt ends before the final analysis and operative order, so the final decision cannot be extracted from the text.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Waiver of Delay - Acceptance of late payments without protest constitutes waiver - Not mentioned - The petitioners argued that CIDCO accepted all lease premium payments after due dates without protest, thereby waiving delayed payment charges; CIDCO contended DPC demand was made later; the court recorded the facts and the interim stay but final ruling not included in excerpt (Paras 7, 18).
B) Administrative Law - Cancellation of Allotment - Validity of cancellation and notice/serving - Not mentioned - CIDCO cancelled allotments on 13.07.2016 and forfeited 25% deposits; petitioners contended they never received DPC demand letters; issue of proper service disputed; final determination beyond excerpt (Paras 10-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether CIDCO wrongfully withheld possession and cancelled allotment letters; whether acceptance of delayed payments without protest waived delayed payment charges; whether petitioners liable for DPC and interest
Final Decision
Not mentioned (final disposition not included in provided excerpt)
Law Points
- Acceptance of delayed payments without demur or protest may constitute waiver of objections to delay
- delayed payment charges with interest may be subject to contractual terms and resolutions
- cancellation of allotment requires valid service of demand and justification
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (09) 34
WRIT PETITION NO. 9434 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9445 OF 2016 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9447 OF 2016
S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav
Rohaan Cama, Abhishek Deshmukh, Sanjiv Sawant, Ashutosh Kulkarni, Akanksha Helaskar, M.P. Thakur
Shivaji Pandurang Chumbhale, Waman Pandurang Chumbhale, Kalpana Shivaji Chumbhale
The Administrator, CIDCO, Mumbai Agra Road, New Nashik – 422 009 and State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging CIDCO's cancellation of lease allotments and forfeiture of 25% deposits over alleged non-payment of delayed payment charges
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of cancellation letters, delivery of possession of plots, and waiver of delayed payment charges
Filing Reason
CIDCO cancelled allotment letters dated 13.07.2016 and forfeited 25% of deposited amounts, allegedly due to non-payment of delayed payment charges
Previous Decisions
Ad-interim relief granted by High Court staying cancellation and restraining CIDCO from allotting plots to third parties
Issues
Whether CIDCO wrongfully withheld delivery of possession of plots for approximately 15 years
Whether acceptance of delayed lease premium payments without protest constituted waiver of delayed payment charges
Whether CIDCO's cancellation of allotment letters was valid without proper service of DPC demand notices
Whether delayed payment charges and interest were payable as claimed by CIDCO
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that CIDCO accepted late payments without demur or protest, thereby waiving any claim to delayed payment charges and interest
Petitioners argued they never received the demand letters dated 20.07.2010 and 17.08.2012, hence cancellation was invalid
CIDCO contended that delayed payment charges were payable under Resolution No. 8840 and that cancellation was justified due to non-payment
CIDCO claimed that a letter dated 17.08.2012 rejecting exemption from interest was served on one Mr. Bhosale, which the petitioners disputed
Ratio Decidendi
Not mentioned (final ratio not included in provided excerpt)
Judgment Excerpts
The issue in the three Petitions broadly pertains to the Petitioners' contention that Respondent No.1, CIDCO ... has wrongfully withheld delivery of possession of the subject plots and has deprived the Petitioners of possession of their respective plots for approximately 15 years, eventually purporting to cancel the allotment letters in favour of the Petitioners.
CIDCO having accepted, without demur or protest, the payments after the due dates set out in the allotment letters, is deemed to have waived any objection to any alleged delay, and therefore the Petitioners are not liable to make any payment of DPC, let alone interest thereon, whatsoever
By the impugned communications dated 13 th July 2016, CIDCO cancelled the allotment letters issued in favour of the respective Petitioners after forfeiting 25% of the amount deposited by them with CIDCO.
Procedural History
CIDCO allotted plots to petitioners in December 2005 and March 2006. Petitioners made payments in instalments with last payments on 18.12.2008 for Shivaji and Kalpana and on 18.10.2010 for Waman. CIDCO allegedly sent DPC demand letter on 20.07.2010, disputed by petitioners. CIDCO sent further letter on 17.08.2012 rejecting interest exemption, service disputed. On 13.07.2016 CIDCO cancelled allotments and forfeited 25% deposits. Petitioners filed writ petitions and obtained ad-interim stay on cancellation and third-party allotment. On 31.03.2021 court directed CIDCO to inform DPC amount and readiness to hand over plots free of encroachments; both sides furnished calculations. Matter reserved on 03.09.2021 and judgment pronounced on 28.09.2021.
