\u201cEnough is enough,\u201d the Bench exclaimed, while observing that when the petitioner succeeded in the bid, he was well aware that he is required to deposit the amount for the plot in question within a stipulated time, and hence he should have been ready for payment of the full price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Court cannot show more leniency, especially when there are contractual terms involved between the appellant and the respondent in auction of the plot in question and thereafter demand of the money by the Delhi Development Authority. In such demand there is bound to be a time-limit, otherwise there will be no end of extension of the time-limit and no sale can be finalized by the DDA,\u201d <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n-stated the Bench.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bench further added: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cToo much extension of time to deposit the money is not desirable. Public body has to complete the work within the time limit. Salaries are to be paid and services are to be purchased. Hence, such allottees have to deposit the money within a time-bound schedule.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nThe Bench concluded by observing, \u201cCharity beyond law is a cruelty to others\u201d, and dismissed the instant appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal challenging the Single Judge\u2019s order wherein the Court had refused to interfere with Delhi Development Authority\u2019s decision pertaining to non-issuance of fresh demand letter seeking outstanding amount from a successful bidder of a plot in Delhi\u2019s Rohini and ruled that extension of time to deposit outstanding amount is a policy matter of DDA and the Court will be extremely slow in interfering with such policy decisions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":143505,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,58578],"tags":[5057,111236,21517,1377,111219,91675],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2021\/02\/22133935\/Delhi-HC-3.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228450"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=228450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228450\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/143505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}