In Brief
A property developer allotted land by HUDCO (a government agency) paid the first instalment but refused the second and third payments, claiming the lessor had failed to obtain statutory approvals and execute a sub-lease as contractually required. After years of litigation, the lower courts found the cancellation and forfeiture invalid. The High Court reversed this. The Supreme Court held that HUDCO had indeed breached its reciprocal obligations under the allotment agreement by failing to secure required approvals and execute the sub-lease deed. The Court ordered refund of the principal amount deposited. However, because the developer had engaged in forum shopping, procedural evasion, and demonstrated unclean hands (e.g., failing to pay court fees to avoid financial exposure), the Court denied discretionary interest, though it imposed 6% interest if HUDCO delayed refund beyond three months."}
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.