Mary v state of kerala and ors. .., civil appeal no.9466 of 2003.

Facts of the case:

1.The appellant, Mary was a successful bidder in an auction conducted on

24.3.1994 for sale of privilege to vend arrack in Shop Nos. 47 to 55 and 57 in
Kalady Range –III for the period 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995. Her bid was for a sum
of Rs.25,62,000/-.

2. The officer conducting the sale declared the appellant to be the ‘auction
purchaser’ in terms of Rule 5(8) of the Rules. Being declared as auction
purchaser, she deposited 30% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.7,68,600/- on the
same date and executed a temporary agreement in terms of Rule 5(10) which
was subject to confirmation by the Board of Revenue.

3. Kalady is the holy birth place of Adi Sankaracharya and adjoining thereto
existed a Christian pilgrim centre associated with St. Thomas. The residents of
those areas objected to the running of any abkari shop.

4. Because people objected, Mary wrote to the collector to rescind the said
contract and asked for refund of the amount.

5.The state govt did not take any step to resell the shops. It seems that the
cause shown by the appellant did not find favour with the authority and the
Assistant Excise Commissioner, by notice dated 20.4.1995, called upon the
appellant to pay a sum of Rs.33,41,400/- towards the balance amount.

6. While challenging the aforesaid notices and further proceedings, the

appellant contended that Rule 5(15) and 5(16) are arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellant filed another writ
petition, inter alia, praying for direction to the State authorities to refund an
amount of Rs.7,68,600/- paid by her as initial deposit. This writ petition was
registered as Original Petition No.12514 of 1994 (Mary vs. State of Kerala &
Others).

7. The judge observed “The undisputed and uncontroverted facts as appearing

above clearly attract the doctrine of frustration and impossibility leading to the
conclusion that the contract from its inception becomes void and discharged”.
 Salman Rushdie ancestral property

1.Rushdie's father Anis Ahmed Rushdie had entered into an agreement with
the then Congress leader Bhiku Ram Jain to sell his house situated in posh
Civil Lines in North Delhi for Rs3.75 lakh. Jain had paid Rs 50,000 to Rushdie
and given an assurance to pay the rest of the amount after the owner got tax
clearance certificates from income tax authorities.

2. The two families then got into a dispute after they accused each other of not
respecting the terms of the agreement.Jains then filed a suit in 1977 requesting
the trial court to direct Rushdie for the execution of the December 1970
agreement.

3.On October 5, 1983, the court ruled in their favour, saying Jains could get
the property after paying the rest of the Rs 3.25 lakh to the Rushdies. The
Rushdies then appealed in the Delhi High Court which on October 31 last
ruled that Jains could not ask for transfer of the bungalow to them.It asked the
Rushdies to return Rs50,000 with 12 per cent annual interest

4.Jains then approached the apex court which after hearing all sides came to
the conclusion that the high court erred in giving order in favour of Rushdies
and quashed the order but directed the buyer to pay the current market price
of the property.

5.The Jain family approached the apex court seeking modification in that
order and pleaded that the property be handed over to them by paying an
amount of Rs 6 crore against Rs 3.75 lakh which was agreed upon in 1970 and
not on the basis of market price.

6.A bench of Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi, however, refused
to modify the order saying if the parties disagree over the market price, to be
calculated by a trial court, they can seek proper legal remedy
.