Menu Close

Adikanda Biswal And Ors. vs Bhubaneswar Development

case brief, case summary

Facts

The facts seem to be that on 7.1.2000, this same Bhubaneswar Development Authority (for simple, ‘the B.D.A.’) published an advertorial in the Oriya Daily “The Samaya” going to offer an established plot of 2400 sqft.

Even in Chandrasekharpur housing neighbourhood for Rs. 2,40,000/- just at an amount of Rs. 100/- per sqft., and that the said ad campaign stated that because there were only 45 plots available, all Entrants should deposit the funds in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, B.D.A. Branches, Bhubaneswar, or submit on printer paper with the genuine challan, according to the advertising.

The petitioners’ contention in this Petition Filed is that, in answer to the abovementioned advertising dated 7.1.2000, they submitted in card stock and submitted Rs. 2,40,000/- only at Oriental Bank of Commerce, B.D.A. Office, Bhubaneswar.

The B.D.A., on the other hand, did not assign the plaintiffs any plot in the Chandrasekharpur residential neighbourhood, instead deciding in its 76th discussion on 16.5.2000 to kill the entire process started by the said commercial, return the money deposited by the people applying with 4.5 per cent interest, and call for new application areas by re-advertising this same plots at the sum of Rs. 100/- per sqft.

According to the reply affidavit, the Director of the Lokpal urged the Vice-Chairman of B.D.A. to provide a version of the original advertising as well as other advertisements published previously in a letter dated 15.1.2000, or the Lokpal addressed the subject with the Vice-Chairman.

It is also claimed in the counter declaration that, in light of all of these data, the B.D.A. resolved at its 76th session on 16.5.2000 to annul the whole procedure, return all deposited funds with 4.5 per cent interest to all depositors, and re-advertise on-site assignment by lottery.

See also  Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. sportsala

Issues

  • Whether the primary factor in determining whether a remark is an offer or an invitation to treat is the intentions by which it was made. A comment is only a proposal if the guy making it desires to be bound, or if the prime locations thinks that the conversation took place with this aim.
    • As a result, if a statement clearly states that the guy making it is not to be bound just by the other party’s notice of consent, but only after he has agreed to the deal in which the declaration is incorporated, the comment is not an offer?

Judgment

Applying the aforementioned law of English law to the facts of the situation, the contra affidavit filed on duty on the part of the B.D.A. doesn’t quite declare any better public interest for failing to uphold the B.D.A.’s clear and consistent treaty signed in the frequency distribution 7.1.2000 to decide the allowance on a first-come, first-served basis and to give preferential treatment to those job seekers that applied for the position.

All that is stated in the table sworn statement is for as many as 58 people lodged Rs. 2,40,000/- on 7.1.2000 itself within the response to the said advertisement, which raised many eyelids and accusations made in the print media, and the Adviser of the Lokpal have sent a letter dated 15.1.20.00 writing to request the Managing Director of B.D.A. to send a link to the original commercial, and the Lokpal also requested that the Chief Executive of B.D.A. send a copy of the affidavit.

See also  Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh 

The Lokpal also spoke with the Vice-Chairman, B.D.A., about sending a version of the original advertising. The B.D.A. appears to have conducted no investigation to determine whether any foul play occurred but rather whether applicants were aware prior to the analysis model 7.1.2000 which also plots of 2400 sqft. in Chandrasekharpur housing area would be heavily marketed for allowance at a cost of Rs. 2,40,000/- at a sum of Rs. 100/- per sqft. would indeed be publicized for allocations and had accordingly organized the monetization.

Rather, the circumstances indicated in the B.D.A.’s counter affidavit are completely irrelevant to the B.D.A.’s failure to meet the aforementioned obvious and undeniable commitments made to the plaintiffs in the advertising dated 7.1.2000.

It was also resolved at the 76th gathering of the B.D.A. on 16.5.2000 to reallot those lands in Chandrasekharpur residential neighbourhood by raffle at around the same value of Rs. 100 per sqft. following new advertising at the very same value of Rm. 100 per sqft.

As a result, Mr Mohapatra’s claim that the land’s selling price has grown in the interim and that the sale cannot be granted at Rs. 100/- per sqft. on strength of the advertising dated 7.1.2000 can really be recognized.

Author/Editor

Leave a Reply