w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Delhi Development Authority v/s Skipper Construction and Another

    IAs Nos. 15, 16, 29, 30, 32-A, 32-B, 34, 36, 38-40, 42-49, 51-57, 59, 60, 62-71 in SLP (C) No. 21000 of 1993
    Decided On, 04 November 1999
    At, Supreme Court of India
    By, HON'BLE JUSTICE M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND HON'BLE JUSTICE U. C. BANERJEE
   


Judgment Text
1. During the course of the hearing of the matters today and after hearing submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Mukul Rohtagi, a question has arisen as to whether the various persons who had paid monies to Skipper Construction Company for purchase of flats at Jhandewalan, had a statutory charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. It was contended for the purchasers that they had such a charge and that the said charge could be enforced against the Jhandewalan property after it was resumed by DDA from Skipper Construction Company but also after DDA sold the same to another purchaser. Here the subsequent purchase was by a "company". The claimants relied upon the decisions of the Bombay High Court (Abdul Hamid Khan Mubin Khan v. Mohd. Ali Humayun 1952 AIR(Bom) 67 : 53 Bom LR 817) and Munnalal Bhagirath v. Zamaklal Gumchandji 1952 AIR(MB) 145)) to say that the charge could be enforced against subsequent purchasers. It was also contended that under the aforesaid provision in Section 55(6)(b) interest was also payable to the purchasers and would also be a charge on the property and limitation would be 12 years. On these issues, therefore, it has become necessary to issue notice to the "company" which has purchased property from DDA. The necessary details regarding the name of the Company and its address will be furnished by DDA


2. A question has also arisen as to the value of the building constructed by Skipper Construction Company on the Jhandewalan property as on the date when DDA sold the property to the abovesaid "company" after taking back possession from Skipper Construction Company. We, therefore, direct DDA to furnish the relevant material available from its records in regard to the valuation of the land as well as the valuation of the building as on 1993 when it sold the property to the "company"


3. Learned counsel for DDA submitted that details regarding valuation are contained in the paper-books filed in the Delhi High Court in Suit No. 770 of 1993. We therefore, direct the Registrar of the Delhi High Court to transmit the records pertaining to Suit No. 770 of 1993 to this Court. After the record is received it will be open to the amicus curiae to examine the said record


Notice will be sent by dasti to DDA by tomorrow


The first appeal relating to Barakhamba Road properly pending in the Delhi High Court


5. In respect of Property No. 22, Barakhamba Road, there were various agreements of sale entered into by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. in favour of various purchasers. In regard to the said property the said purchasers had filed suits for specific performance on the original side of the Delhi High Court. The suits were decreed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court subject to certain conditions. Aggrieved by some of the conditions, the plaintiffs in those suits filed regular first appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The said appeals are pending


6. A large number of matters concerning Skipper Companies are pending before us and are part-heard. One of the contentions raised before us in those cases was that the consideration paid by the purchasers in respect of the Barakhamba Road property was utilised for the construction of the building on the Jhandewalan property. In the circumstances we prima facie feel that it will be convenient to dispose of the various issues connected with the Barakhamba Road property also along with the matters now before us relating to the Jhandewalan property. Notices will, therefore, have to be issued to the parties in the said first appeals to show cause why the said first appeals should not be transferred to this Court under Article 139-A sub-clause (2) [sic (1)] of the Constitution of India


7. We are informed that the said first appeals are coming up on 16-11-1999 before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. We are of the view that, instead of sending notices to those parties, it will be easier if the above view of this Court for transfer of the appeals to this Court is communicated to the counsel for the parties appearing in the said appeals on 16-11-1999 in the Delhi High Court


8. The Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court of India is, therefore, directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar of the Delhi High Court to be placed before the Division Bench of the High Court on 16-11-1999 hearing the Skipper case appeals so that the Delhi High Court could inform the parties in those cases about the prop

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
osal for transfer of those first appeals to this Court 9. These matters relating to the Jhandewalan property will be listed in this Court on 24-11-1999 on which date we expect the parties concerned with the Barakhamba property or their counsel in the said first appeals to appear before us and show cause why the said appeals should not be transferred to this Court 10. A copy of this order will be given to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Garg and to Mr. Jaswant Singh Court Masters.
O R