Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction (SC)
BS197595
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- M. Jagannadha Rao and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
Case No.15, 16, 29, 30, 32A, 32B, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 49, 51, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, & 65, 74 in Special Leave Petition (civil) 21000 of 1993. D/d.
29.11.1999.
Delhi Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
Skipper Construction & Anr. - Respondent
Skipper Construction case - Commission - Claims referred to a Commission - Commission appointed by Supreme Court to go into the genuineness of the claims of purchasers in relation to Jhandewalan property and property belonging to Technology Park Ltd. - Regarding Technology Park Ltd. issues specified which would be gone into by the Commission.
[Paras 8 and 9]
ORDER
Israel Embassy
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Israel Embassy seeks two weeks' time for obtaining further instructions in regard to the purchase of the property in the possession of Israel Embassy. Prayer is granted. Appointment of Commission:
2. Presently, it appears to us that the claims of purchasers relate to four different properties, namely:
(3) Barakhamba Property and
3. For the present, we propose to refer to a Commission, the claims relating to Jhandewalan property and Technology Park Ltd.
4. So far as the claim relating to Barakhamba property is concerned. We have already directed issuance of notices to concerned purchasers to show cause why the appeals pertaining to these matters which are pending in the Delhi High Court be not transferred to this Court. The response to notices is still awaited. We, are, therefore, not able to refer any claims relating to Barakhamba property to the Commission for the present.
5. Similarly, with regard to the Symphony apartments, which is a project of Skipper Builders (Pvt) Ltd., a winding up application is pending in the Delhi High Court. We have already passed orders directing the Provisional Official Liquidator to submit a report to this Court, detailing the stage of the case and also the steps, if any taken by the Delhi High Court and the Provisional Liquidator. Therefore, we are not passing any orders in regard to the claims relating to Symphony apartments, for the present, being a project of Skipper Builders (Pvt) Ltd.
6. So far as Jhandewalan property is concerned, two Commissions were earlier appointed by this Court, headed by/chaired by (1) Hon'ble Justice R.C. Lahoti and (2) Hon'ble Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy. The former related to claims of purchasers prior to 29.1.1991 and the latter related to claims in regard to agreements entered into subsequent to that date.
7. Reports have been submitted to this Court by the said Commission and the principal amounts due to those claimants whose claims were found to be genuine have already been paid. It thereafter came to the notice of this Court that there are some more claimants whose claims have to be considered on merits and were not before the above two Commissions. This is in regard to Jhandewlan property. We had earlier indicated in our orders that we propose to appoint a Commission to go into other claims relating to Jhandewlan property.
8. Similarly, with regard to the persons who had entered into the agreement in relation to the land of Technology Park Ltd., there are claimants whose claims have not so far been referred to any Commission. Now these claims also have to be referred to a Commission. In regard to these claims of purchasers, we appoint Hon'ble Justice P.K. Bahri, former Judge of the Delhi High Court to go into the genuineness of these claims of purchasers in relation to Jhandewalan property and the property belonging to Technology Park Ltd.
(A) So far as Jhandewalan property is concerned, the Commission need not go into the claims which had already been rejected as bogus either wholly or in part, by the Chinnappa Reddy Commission or by the Lahoti Commission. It will not be necessary for the Commission to go into the question of the period of limitation so far the claims are concerned. That is being separately considered by this Court. However, the Commission may indicate whether the claims would be barred, if a three year period of limitation is applied or whether a twelve year period of limitation is applied.
9. The claimants will file an affidavit before the Commission as to whether they have approached any other Court or forum for refund of the monies or for the purpose of specific performance in regard to Jhandewlan property and whether they would desire to proceed with the matter before the Commission for refund of monies giving up their other claims before other Fora.
(B) So far as the Technology Park Ltd. is concerned, we request that the following issues will be gone into by the Commission:
(1) the exact area of the property;
(2) the exact number of genuine claims;
(3) Claims of Statutory bodies and encumbrances, if any, on the property and
(4) Identification of those claimants who wants specific performance and those who want refund of monies paid by them.
10. We accept the submission of Mr. Chandra Shekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Shikha Developers Pvt. Ltd., that his client is at liberty to participate in the proceedings before the Commission so far as the properties relating to Technology Park Ltd. are concerned.
11. Public Notice: The Commission will issue a public notice inviting claims by purchasers and indicate the conditions some of which have been referred above. The Commission will give wide publicity through such newspapers as it may deem fit in the circumstance of the case. In this regard, the Commission may seek the assistance of the Amicus Curiae and counsel appearing on behalf of Tejwant Singh, so far as Jhandewlan property is concerned and counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Probjot Singh, so far as the Technology Park properties are concerned.
12. The expenditure towards advertisements will be met out of the amount lying with the Registry of this Court. If any demand is made by the Commission for payment towards advertisement charges, the Registry is directed to release the same from the monies available in regard to this case.
13. Whatever claims have already been received in this case, a list will be prepared by the learned Amicus Curie and be placed before the Commission and the Commission is at liberty to take further steps in regard to such claims mentioned in the said list.
14. The Commission will, be free to give hearing for various affected parties and follow such procedure as it deems fit consistent with the principles of natural justice. It will be open to the Commission to take oral or documentary evidence as it deems fit.
15. The infrastructure for the functioning of the Commission, and other secretarial services, will be provided by the D.D.A.
16. So far as the remuneration is concerned, the Commission will be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for a sitting of two hours. The D.D.A. is directed to make payment of the remuneration as well, at the first instance, subject to further orders of this Court.
17. If the Commission wants any further directions from this Court, it will be free to address a letter to the Registrar General of this Court.
Amicus Curiae:
18. The amount which has already directed to be paid to the Amicus Curiae, vide Court's order dated 24.11.99 will be paid from out of the rent being paid by the Israel Embassy.
Provisional Liquidator:
19. The Provisional Liquidator appointed by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Skipper Builders (Pvt) Ltd. will submit a report to this Court, as directed by this Court in its earlier order dated 3.11.1999, on or before the next date of hearing.
Next hearing:
20. next date of hearing is fixed on 18.1.2000.
Other allied issues:
21. The matters relating to disciplinery proceedings against D.D.A. Officials and the Bank Officials, and Transfer of the Appels relating to Barakhamba properties, from Delhi High Court to this Court and the matters relating to Symphony apartments be also listed on the next date of hearing i.e. on 18.1.2000.
.