DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

The development agreement between DDA and Kenneth Builders was frustrated by intervening circumstances not contemplated by either party, rendering the contract impossible of performance within meaning of Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872. The builder is entitled to a refund with interest.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd.; Appellant: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi; Appellant: Delhi Pollution Control Committee
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Supervening Impossibility, Auction of Land, Development Agreement, Environmental Clearance, Refund of Deposit
Contract Law Environmental Law Property Law Frustration of Contract Supervening Impossibility Auction of Land Development Agreement Environmental Clearance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd.

Respondent

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

Appellant

Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intervening circumstances not contemplated by either party frustrated the development agreement under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872
  2. 2 Whether the builder is entitled to a refund of the deposit with interest due to impossibility of performance
  3. 3 Whether DDA is the final authority to determine land use relating to the Ridge

Ratio Decidendi

The development agreement between DDA and Kenneth Builders was frustrated by intervening circumstances not contemplated by either party, rendering the contract impossible of performance within meaning of Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872. The builder is entitled to a refund with interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • DDA is directed to refund the deposit made by the respondent-builder with interest at 6% per annum calculated from 11th September, 2006 till realization.
  • The question regarding DDA's authority over land use determination relating to the Ridge is left open.