1) when did period of 45 days lapse?

2) what are the clauses in MOU relating to delayed payments?

3) has he issued notice to you to pay the entire amount ?

4) you can issue legal notice to seller that you are willing to make payments as per terms of the MOU

5) it is necessary to peruse terms of MOU to further advice

6) contact a local lawyer

1) since period of 45 days has elapsed seller is not bound to sell the flat to you

2) you would be entitled to refund of Rs 5 lakhs paid as advance unless there is a forfeiture clause in the MOU which provides that in the event of failure to make payment within 45 days amount paid as advance would be forfeited

firstly issue a legal notice calling upon him to come forth and accept the balance amounts and conclude the sale transaction, if he fails to respond go to court and file a suit for specific performance of the MOU and seek injunction against the seller from attempting to sell off the villa to any third party during the pendency of the case.

Immediately send the seller a notice expressing your willfulness to complete the purchase by way of making the balance payments. Set a deadline to do so.

On its expiry you can file a suit for specific performance of contract in civil court to buy the property. In the said suit you can seek injunction as well so the property may not be sold out to frustrate your claim.

If the seller is a builder then you can file such case in consumer forum which is more expeditious and effective to give such reliefs.

1) Jats has been included by several state commissions in state OBC list time to time.

“(1) 03.11.1999 State of Rajasthan

only jats in rajasthan(except bharatpur and dholpur) has been included in the central list.

2) NCBC with the help of Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) started a new survey to judge the backwardness of the Jat community and with mix views it said that there is no need to include jats in the central list of OBC.

3) on 04.03.2014 all the jats from 9 states were included in the central list of OBC

4) SC gave judgement according to the recommendations of NCBC and quashed the reservation for jats according to the notification bearing No. 63 dated 4.3.2014 including them in the Central List of Other Backward Classes.it set aside the notification to implement Jats in the Central list of Other Backward Classes (OBC)... Caste, though a prominent factor, can't be the sole factor to decide backwardness... Backwardness has to be social backwardness and not educational or economic backwardness."

5) So as of now only jats in rajasthan (except bharatpur and dholpur) has the reservation under the central list of OBC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 274 OF 2014

RAM SINGH & ORS. ...PETITIONER (S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA ...RESPONDENT (S)

pg 48 of SC order

Rajasthan

41. The NCBC in its report dated 28.11.1997 had

recommended the inclusion of Jats (excluding Dholpur and

Bharatpur districts) in the Central List of other backward

47

classes. On the basis of the recommendation of the NCBC, the

Government of India had issued a Notification dated

27.10.1999 to the above effect. Following the said Notification,

the State Government had also issued a Notification including

Jats in the State List of other backward classes (excluding the

two districts). Thereafter, the State Commission recommended

for the removal of the area restriction of the Jats in the two

districts which was also accepted by the Government of

Rajasthan and a Notification dated 10.01.2000 was issued. It

appears that in the course of survey undertaken by ICSSR, the

report of the State Commission for OBCs was not made

available. In the absence of the said Report, a study

sponsored by the State Government and conducted by the

Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, was considered. On

the basis of the findings recorded by the ICSSR in its report,

(earlier extracted), the Jats were found to be better off in

regard to ownership of land though in respect of literacy rate

and representation in Government service they were found to

be marginally lower than Ahirs, Vishnois and Charans but

better than rest of the OBCs. In the aforesaid backdrop the

NCBC came to the conclusion that on the basis of the

48

materials available as well as what had been revealed in the

course of the the public hearings conducted on 10.02.2014

and 13.02.2014 “the preponderance of evidence adduced by

those speaking against the motion was much more than

those speaking for.” Under these circumstances the NCBC

did not find any reason to interfere with its earlier order issued

on the subject.

( page 64 of SC order dated 17/3/2015 )

Accordingly the

aforesaid notification bearing No. 63 dated 4.3.2014 including

the Jats in the Central List of Other Backward Classes for the

States of Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya

Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Bharatpur and Dholpur Districts of

Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is set aside and

quashed. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.

Legally you cannot enforce the sale agreement merel on the basis of an unregistered MOU. This MOU is piece of paper not tenable legally for a relief under specific performance of contract however if he has acknowledged the receipt of advance amount, this may be used as sale agreement for the said suit with an alternative prayer for refund of the amount received by him with interest if he is not able to execute sale deed as per the terms.

1. The payment in black is simultaneous with the registration of the sale deed or agreement, as the case may be. These are two phenomenons which are to take place at the same time before the registrar.

2. Since there is no delay in remittance of the amount by you the MOU cannot be unilaterally cancelled by him. If he does not come forward to register the sale deed you can initially issue him a lawyer;s notice to seek compliance of the MOU.

3. His failure to register the deed after the receipt of notice from your lawyer would entitle you to sue him to honour the MOU and also claim compensation for the delay.

4. Since the period of 45 days has lapsed you should issue the legal notice without delay.

1. You can not have any deal officially specifying that some part of the consideration will be paid in black money since keeping black money is a crime as per law,

2. So, there is a risk in paying cash to the seller,

3. However, you send him a notice stating that you are ready to pay the entire consideration within the time,

4. Worst to worst, your black money will be taxed but you will avoid the risk of being cheated,

5. Meantime, if you can settle the dispute amicably, you can pay the cash against receipt.

1. The time period for legally enforcing the MOU has already elapsed,

2. The seller can easily call off the deal legally,

3. It will not be prudent on your part to send him a harsh legal notice now,

4. Send him a lettr and/or tell him that you ready with the entire payment, if you do not want to take any risk by paying cash to him without keeping in record.