MOHINDER KUMAR VERMA vs VINOD RAJORIA

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 26.09.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 17.10.2025 + RFA (OS) 61/2025, CM APPL. 61955/2025, CM APPL. 61956/2025 & CM APPL. 61957/2025 MOHINDER KUMAR VERMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Ms. Aadhyaa Khanna, Mr. Aditya Sarma, Mr. Jaisal Baath, Mr. Arun Kumar and Ms. Priyanka Jain, Advs. versus VINOD RAJORIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Kakkar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether, in the absence of a forfeiture clause in the Agreement to Sell, the Appellant/Defendant could claim a right to forfeit the advance of Rs.40 Lakhs on alleged breach by the Respondent/Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of ATS, or whether the learned Single Judge was justified in decreeing the Plaintiff’s suit for refund of the advance of Rs.40 Lakhs with interest and creating a statutory charge over the suit property under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [hereinafter referred to as “TPA”], in favour of the Plaintiff, 2.90 Crore