SUBMITTED BY: BHUPINDER PAL SINGH(20713)

CLASS: B.COM LL.B, 7TH SEMESTER

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(UNDER ARTICLE 109 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE)

TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY....APPELLANT

V.

VARIOUS CLAIMANTS………………….......RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

- -Appellant-

Table of Contents- 2.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS _________________________________________________II

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS ___________________________________________ III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES_______________________________________________ V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION_________________________________________VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS ________________________________________________ VIII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ________________________________________________ XIV

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED _________________________________________________

(I) The House Plotting Authority is not guilty for failure to perform the promise….XIII
(II) The House Plotting Authority has not misrepresent the subscribers and commit fraud
under Indian Contract Act, 1872………. XIV
(III) HPA is not under liability to perform part performance.
PRAYER

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

- -Appellant-

Index of Abbreviations - 3.

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

MEANING

1. Art. ARTICLE

2. FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

3. Hon’ble HONORABLE

4. No. NUMBER

5. Nos. NUMBERS

6. Ors. OTHERS

7. P. PAGE

8. Sec. SECTION

9. V. VERSUS

10. SCA SPECIAL CENTRAL ASSISTANCE

11. IT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

12. SC SUPREME COURT

13. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

14. V./Vs VERSUS

15. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

16. Anr. ANOTHER

17. HC HIGH COURT

III
- -Appellant-

4.

18. CPC CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

19. i.e. THAT IS

20. w.r.t. WITH RESPECT TO

IV
- -Appellant-

5.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

2. LAW OF TORTS

BOOKS

1. LAW OF TORTS BY Dr. R.K. Bangia

2. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 by Universal Law.

CASES

1. Nirmala Anand vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 10 May, 2002.
2. Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd on 22 November,
1967 AIR 718, 1968 SCR (2) 366.
3. Shanti Devi, vs The State Of Bihar. on 24 March, 2021, CIVIL REVIEW
No.397 of 2019 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12014 of 2018.
4. Derry v Peek (1889).
5. Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986 AIR
1571, 1986 SCR (2) 278.

6. Energy Watchdog vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 11 April, 2017, Civil

Appeal Nos.5399-5400 of 2016.
7. M/S. Murlidhar Chiranjilal vs M/S. Harishchandra Dwarkadas And ... on 29
March, 1961 AIR 366, 1962 SCR (1) 653.

DYNAMIC LINKS

1. LEGALBITES.IN
2. LAWOCTOPUS.COM
3. LIVELAW.IN
4. MANUPATRAFAST.COM
5. BARANDBENCH.COM
6. BLOG.IPLEADERS.IN

7. LAWSIKHO.COM
-Index of Authorities- -Appellant-

6.

IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

1. Appellant for the purpose of this memorandum shall stand for TUDA.
2. Respondent for the purpose of this memorandum shall stand for CLAIMANTS.

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

VI
- -Appellant-

Statement of Jurisdiction- 7.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bambia has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and
dispose of the present case by virtue of Article 109 of The Civil Procedure Code.

“Section 109- when appeal lie to the supreme court”

Subject to the provisions in Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution and such rules as may,
from time to time, be made by the Supreme Court regarding appeals from the Courts of India,
and to the provisions hereinafter contained, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any
judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court, if the High Court
certifies—

(i) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and

(ii) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme
Court

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

VII
-Statement of Facts- -Appellant-
8.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. TUDA (Tirupati Urban Development Authority) constituted under

Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975.
2. The Authority has from time to time promoted and advertised several
schemes for allotment of developed plots for construction of apartments
and/or flats for occupation by the allottees.
3. Several persons who have subscribed to this scheme approached
different forums complaining of failure or an unreasonable delay in
accomplishing the schemes.
4. Some have filed complaint before the Monopolies and Restrictive
Trade Practices Commission and some have brought in front of the
competition commission someone raised disputes before the Consumers
Disputes Redressal Forum.
5. In all the cases under appeal, the Court or Commission or Forum
concerned has found the House Plotting Authority (HPA) guilty of having
reasonably delayed in the accomplishment of the announced scheme or
guilty of failure to perform the promise held out to the claimants and
therefore directed the HPA to pay the amount paid or deposited by the
respective claimants to be returned along with interest.
6. In a recent brochure issued by the authority that in the event of the
applicant withdrawing its offer or surrendering the same with no interest,
whatsoever would be payable to the claimants or an alternative option was
arranged the demand of the subscribers is that the residential colony
development at 17 KMs away from the present place.
7. This is the reserved right according to the application terms and
conditions no.8.
8. The matter brought before the High Court under violation of Article
14 of the Constitution.
9. The High Court directed the authority to pay with interest of 12%
per annum after one year from the date of deposit, till the date of refund
in refund cases.
10. The respondents further submitted that in response to the newspaper
advertised dated 22-09-2000 they all paid the amount, but at the time of

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

VIII
-Statement of Facts- -Appellant-
9.

the notification there was some news excerpts in different newspapers as

this site is already finalized for small scale industrial area.
11. Some other published as this land is decided for “Indra Awas
Yojana”.
12. Some other published as this land is going to come up with national
standard cricket ground. In all the cases under appeal, the Court or
Commission or Forum concerned has found the Authority guilty of having
unreasonably delayed the accomplishment of the announced scheme or
guilty of failure to perform the promise held out the claimants and
therefore directed the authority to pay Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation for mental agony suffered by the claimants for failure of the
authority to make available the plot/plots as promised by it.
13. One of the claimant was awarded with Rs.2,00,00 as she got nervous
shock, hospitalized and held surgery to her head along with prescribed
medicines.
14. Hence an appeal was made by TUDA in the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India against the claimants for the reversal of the decision given by the
High Court.

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

IX
-Arguments Advanced- -Appellant-

Questions of Law -

QUESTIONS OF LAW

1. Whether housing plotting authority is guilty for failure to perform

the promise?

2. Whether housing plotting authority has misrepresent the subscribers

and commit fraud under Indian contract act, 1872?

3. Whether HPA is under liability to perform part performance?

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

XII
-Arguments Advanced- -Appellant-

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

. The Housing Plotting Authority is not guilty for failure to perform

the promise.
The counsel argues that the housing plotting authority, TUDA, is not
guilty of failure to perform the promise. TUDA has consistently promoted
and advertised schemes for allotment of developed plots. However,
unforeseen circumstances such as conflicting news reports and changing
land usage plans have caused delays and complications in the execution
of these schemes. TUDA has made efforts to rectify the situation by
offering alternative options to the subscribers, as mentioned in the
brochure. The delays and issues faced by TUDA were beyond its control
and should not be considered as a failure to perform the promise. The
housing plotting authority (HPA) cannot be held guilty for failure to
perform the promise without considering the terms and conditions of the
scheme and the circumstances surrounding the delay or non-performance.
It is essential to examine whether the claimants have complied with their
obligations under the scheme.
Case law: In the case of Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation Pvt.
Ltd.1, the Supreme Court held that if there is a valid reason for the delay
in delivering possession of the property, the developer cannot be held
liable for breach of contract. The court considered the facts and
circumstances of the case to determine whether the delay was reasonable
or not.
Case law: In the case of Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies 2, the
Supreme Court held that promissory estoppel can be invoked against the
government if the promise made by the government is clear,
unambiguous, and intended to create legal relations. However, if the
promise is conditional or is subject to certain terms and conditions, the
1 Nirmala Anand vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 10 May, 2002.

2 Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd on 22 November, 1967 AIR 718,
1968 SCR (2) 366.

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

XI
-Arguments Advanced- -Appellant-

government cannot be held liable for failure to perform if those

conditions are not met.
Case law: In the case of Raja Shanti Devi v. State of Bihar (2002) 3,
the Supreme Court held that delays caused by unforeseen circumstances
do not amount to a breach of promise if the party has made reasonable
efforts to fulfil the promise.

2. The Housing Plotting Authority has not misrepresent the

subscribers and commit fraud under Indian contract act,
1872.
The counsel argues that TUDA has not misrepresented to the subscribers,
nor has it committed fraud under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. TUDA
has consistently advertised and promoted its schemes with the intention of
providing developed plots to the subscribers. Any conflicting news reports
or changing land usage plans were beyond
TUDA's control and cannot be attributed to intentional misrepresentation
or fraud. TUDA has also offered alternative options to the subscribers,
indicating its good faith and willingness to fulfil its promises.
The HPA cannot be accused of committing fraud under the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, unless there is evidence to prove that they
intentionally deceived the subscribers or made false representations.
Misrepresentation: The HPA may argue that any news excerpts or rumours
regarding the land's usage for small-scale industrial area, Indra Awas
Yojana, or a national standard cricket ground are not within their control
and cannot be attributed to them. If the HPA had provided accurate
information at the time of advertisement and subsequent communication,
they cannot be accused of committing fraud through misrepresentation.

3 Shanti Devi, vs The State Of Bihar. on 24 March, 2021, CIVIL REVIEW No.397 of 2019 in
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12014 of 2018.

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

XII
-Arguments Advanced- -Appellant-

Case law: In the case of Derry v. Peek4, the House of Lords held that a
false representation made with the knowledge of its falsity, or without
belief in its truth, or recklessly as to whether it is true or false, can be
considered fraudulent. Mere nonperformance of a promise, without any
fraudulent intent, does not amount to fraud under the Indian Contract Act,
1872.
Case law: In the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986)5, the Supreme Court held that for a
claim of misrepresentation or fraud, there must be a deliberate intention
to deceive or a reckless disregard for the truth. Mere delays or
unforeseen circumstances do not amount to fraud.

3. HPA is not under liability to perform part performance.

The counsel argues that TUDA is not under liability to perform part
performance. TUDA has faced unforeseen circumstances and challenges in
the execution of the schemes, which have caused delays and
complications. However, TUDA has made efforts to rectify the situation
by offering alternative options to the subscribers. The concept of part
performance typically applies to cases where one party has already
performed their part of the contract, but TUDA has faced challenges in
fully performing its obligations due to external factors beyond its control.
Law of Torts: The HPA's inability to perform the promised scheme does
not amount to a tortious act as there is no evidence to suggest that they
intentionally caused harm or acted negligently. The delays and failure to
perform were due to unforeseen circumstances, and the HPA has made
reasonable efforts to fulfill their obligations.

4 Derry v Peek (1889).

5 Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986 AIR 1571, 1986
SCR (2) 278.

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

XI
-Arguments Advanced- -Appellant-

Indian Contract Act: Under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
a contract becomes void if it becomes impossible to perform due to
circumstances beyond the control of the parties. In this case, the delays
and inability to complete the scheme were caused by factors beyond the
HPA's control, such as the land being finalized for different purposes.

Case Law: In the case of Energy Watchdog vs. Central Electricity

Regulatory Commission (2017)6, the Supreme Court held that if a party
is unable to perform a contract due to supervening impossibility or
frustration, they cannot be held liable for non-performance.

Case law: In the case of Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra

Dwarkadas (1962)7, the Supreme Court held that part performance can
only be claimed when all the essential terms of the contract have been
performed by one party and the other party has accepted such
performance. In the present case, TUDA has faced challenges in
performing its obligations fully, and therefore, part performance cannot be
claimed.

6 Energy Watchdog vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 11 April, 2017, Civil Appeal
Nos.5399-5400 of 2016. 7 M/S. Murlidhar Chiranjilal vs M/S. Harishchandra Dwarkadas And
... on 29 March, 1961 AIR 366, 1962 SCR (1) 653.

-MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-

XII
-Prayer - 15. -Appellant-

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITITES CITED,
THE APPELLANT HUMBLY PLEADS BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT TO:

 REVIEW AND REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, WHICH

DIRECTED THE TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA) TO
PAY COMPENSATION TO THE CLAIMANTS FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE
PROMISED PLOTS.

ANY ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTERST OF EQUITY,

JUSTICE AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE

FOR THE ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT FACTION SHALL

BE DUTY BOUND FOREVER

SD/-

(COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

XV

MEMORANDUM for THE APPELLANT-