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 & Another

    I.A.Nos. 95-101 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21000 of 1993
    Decided On, 21 July 2003
    At, Supreme Court of India
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.M. DHARMADHIKARI
    For the Appearing Parties: Kamini Jaiswal, Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Dayan Krishnan, Adv. (A.C.), V.K. Verma, Adv. (N/P), Din Dayal Sharma, K.J. John, Jana Kalyan Das, R.C. Gubrele, Ravinder Nath, Sanjay Tshartaki, Rajeev Kumar, M/s Rajinder Narain & Co., S.P. Sharma, Ashwani Bharadwaj, Ashishek Atrey, H.S. Parihar, P.R. Ramasesh, K.K. Gupta, Y.P. Narula, Anil K. Chopra, Nanita Sharma, Sunil Dogra, Sayali Pathak for M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co., C.N. Sree Kumar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, S.K. Verma, M/s J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Manjula Gupta, M/s. S. Narain & Co., H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, K.S. Rana, Sumita Mukherjee, M/s Arputham,Aruna & Co., Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep Roy, Abha R. Sharma, Sushma Suri, S.K. Verma, Arun K. Sinha, Binu Tamta, P. Parmeswaran, B. Krishna Prasad, Prem Malhotra, S. Janani, Abhijat P. Medh, M/s. Janendra Lal & Co., Ashok Mathur, Annam D.N. Rao, Ravindra Kumar, Chander Shekhar Ashri, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ramesh Babu M.R., Rajeev Sharma, V.B. Saharya for M/s Saharya & Co., Asha Jain Madan, B.K. Satija, P.K. Manohar, Sanjay R. Hegde, Pradeep Misra, S. Muralidhar, (N/P), P.H. Parekh, (N/P), K.B. Rohtagi, (N/P), Krishnamurthi Swami, Ashok K. Srivastava, Prakash Singh, Indu Malhotra,Adv. (N/P), B. Krishna Prasad, Hemantika Wahi, Sumita Hazarika, Aruna Gupta, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, R.K. Kapoor, B.R. Kapur, Sumit Kumar, M.K. Verma, Sunita Sharma, B.V. Balaram Das, Y.P. Mahajan, S.N. Terdal, P.N. Misra, Sr. Advocate, Rajendra Singhvi, Tejwant Singh, In-person, K.K. Mohan, Dhan Singh Nagar, R.D. Kewalramani, Maj. Gen. Joginder Singh, In-person (N/P), Sanjeev Malhotra, Vibha Datta Makhija, L.K. Pandey, (N/P), L.K. Pandey, (N/P), Vijay Laxmi Menon, (N/P), Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, D.K. Garg, Prashant Kumar, Manik Karanjawala, D.S. Mahra, Sanjay Parikh, J.K. Bhatia, M.P. Jha, E.C. Agarwala, Advocates.


Judgment Text
The State of Israel, represented by its Embassy at Delhi, [for short, `Israel Embassy'] has deposited the entire amount of sale consideration. This being the position, the sale in favour of the Israel Embassy is confirmed as per clause (20) of the terms and conditions of the sale notification.

The Registry is directed to make payment of the amount mentioned in Office Report dated 18th July, 2003 in respect of publication charges incurred on account of advertisements of publication of the sale notification.

I.A. No.95:

Learned counsel seeks leave to withdraw the interlocutory application. It is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a application having regard to the subsequent development, namely, the judgement passed by the High Court.

I.A. No.96:

Learned counsel states that the application has become infructuous. It is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous.

I.A. No. 97:

In view of the fact that Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel, has been appointed to assist the court on behalf of the Flat Buyers Association, this application does not survive. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

I.A. No.98:

List the application after three weeks.

I.A. No. 99:

Four weeks' time is granted to the Delhi Development Authority to file a counter affidavit to the application.

The application will be taken up at an appropriate stage.

I.A. No. 100:

List the application after six weeks.

Counter affidavit shall be filed in the meanwhile.

I.A. Nos.101 and 102:

The Israel Embassy having deposited the entire sale consideration amount by a cheque dated 31st May, 2003, the learned counsel representing the Israel Embassy states that the amount of rent deposited for the months of June, 2003 and July, 2003, as per the order of this Court, may be refunded. In view of the fact that the entire amount of sale consideration in respect of the property in question [No.3, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi] is deposited in the court, Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the amount be refunded to the Israel Embassy. We, accordingly, direct the Registry to refund the amount of Rs.23,23,952/- [Rupees twenty three lakhs twenty three thousand nine hundred and fifty two] to the Israel Embassy.

I.A. No. 103:

Six weeks' time is granted to the Israel Embassy to file counter affidavit to the application.

List after six weeks.

I.A. No. 104:

The application will be heard at an appropriate stage.

I.A. No. 105:

Learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the inte

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
rlocutory application. It is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an application at an appropriate stage, if need be. ******** List the matter on 28th July, 2003 for consideration of the proposed sale deed as also for release of payment to the banks concerned.
O R