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


William Jacks And Company India Limited v/s Skipper Sales Private Limited

    Original Miscellaneous Petition Appeal No. 3002 of 1996, 3001 of 1996, 2979 of 1996, 2978 of 1996, 2684 of 1996, 1784 of 1996, 2309 of 1996, 2299 of 1996, 2315 of 1996, 2317 of 1996, 2341 of 1987, Contempt Civil Petition Appeal No. 50 of 1991, 68 of 1991, 1124 of 1991, 1126 of 1991, 153 of 1992, 32 of 1993, 4 of 1993, Interim Application Appeal No. 6428 of 1993, 1993 of 1995
    Decided On, 01 September 1997
    At, High Court of Delhi
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAMOORTHY
    For the Appearing Parties: Amit S. Chadha, G. Rama Swamy, Advocates.


Judgment Text
K. RAMAMOORTHY, J.


(1) THE builders Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had not acted in accordance with the business ethics and that had resulted in number of persons instituting suits in this Court. The fact that the premises bearing Door No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi was owned by the following persons as co-owners is not disputed. The share of each of the persons is also given below: (i) Shri 0m Prakash

1/6th



(ii) Shri Atam Prakash

1/6th



(iii) Shri Vijender Singh

1/6th



(iv) Shri Rajinder Singh

1/25th



Shriji tender Singh

1/25th



Shri Anil Gupta

1/25th



Smt. Kushal Wati

1/25th



Smt. Pushpa Gupta

1/50th



(v) Shri Padam Singh

1/24th


Smt. Gayatri Devi

1/24th



Shri Madhukar Singh

1/24th



Shri Diwakar Singh

1/24th



(vi) Smt. Savitri Devi

1/30th



Smt. Vimla Devi

1/30th



Smt. Memo Devi

1/30th



Smt. Vidya Wati

1/30th



Smt. Santosh Bala

1/30th





(2) IN the first instance Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with the owners on 24. 6. 1977 for the purchase of the property. That did not materialise. Thereupon in 1981 collaboration agreement was executed between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vijender Singh, one of the co-owners modifying the agreement. There were agreements on 22. 4. 1985 between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vijender Singh and the members of his family and there was an agreement on 3. 11. 1986 between Mr. Vijender Singh and his family members in and by which Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. agreed to allot space to Mr. Vijender Singh and his family. 0n3. II. 1986skippersales Pvt. Ltd. assigned its rights which derived from the coowners to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and on and from 3. 11. 1986 it was the responsibility of Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to complete the Complex and allot the flats to various agreement holders. It appears that right from 1977 onwards agreements had been entered into between Skippers Sales Pvt. Ltd. and intending flat buyers and Skippers Towers Pvt. Ltd. and intending buyers. A perusal of the records would show that there were more number of buyers than the flats available in the Complex that is the genesis of the present dispute.


(3) THIS Court with a view to quickening the process of construction and allotment appointed a Committee consisting of two retired learned Judges of this Court for this purpose and they submitted two Reports, one interim and the other final. The final report was submitted on 18. 1. 1994. The Committee had proposed allotments. The Committee had given its report with following Annexures A to V, the details are as follows : 1.

ANNEXURE

-A :

Order dated 1. 10. 1991 by Justice A. D. Singh



2.

ANNEXURE

-B :

0rderdated20. 11. 1991 by Justice A. D. Singh



3.

ANNEXURE

-C :

Order dated 15. 5. 1992 by Justice A. D. Singh



4.

ANNEXURE

-D :

Public Notice



5.

ANNEXURE

-E1 :

List of Nov. , 3, 1986.



6.

ANNEXURE

-E2 :

List of 28 Left out


7.

ANNEXURE

-F :

Interim Report dated 6. 1. 1993.



8.

ANNEXURE

-G :

Waiting List of Buyers Above 6 F



9.

ANNEXURE

-H :

Waiting List - Basement



10.

ANNEXURE -I :

Entitled to Space



11.

ANNEXURE.

-J :

Specific Allotments



12.

ANNEXURE

-K :

Report of Flat Buyers not accepted.


13.

ANNEXURE

-L :

Demarcation of Vijender-and others.



14. '

ANNEXURE

-M :

Possession of Flat Handed.



15.

ANNEXURE

-N :

Collaboration Agreements.



16.

ANNEXURE

-O :

Letter to Jain Shudh giving 16,340 sq. ft.





(30. 10. 91)



17.

ANNEXURE -P :

Order dated 18. 12. 1991 by Justice A. D. Singh



18.

ANNEXURE

-Q :

Resolution Assigning Rights in New Bank's


favour.



19.

ANNEXURE -R :

Execution in favour of Jasvinder Singh.



20.

ANNEXURE -S :

Order dated 5. 1. 1993 Ordering eviction by



Committee.



21.

ANNEXURE -T :

Order dated 16. 5. 1988 permitting



construction subject to payment of



conversion charges, by Justice B. N. Kirpal



(As His Lordship then was)



22.

ANNEXURE -U :

NOC Granted by Chief Fire Officer dated 27. 3. 1991.



23.

ANNEXURE -V :

Letter listing things to be done for approval


from CFO.





(4) A number of suits had later on been filed. Some of the parties have challenged the method adopted by the Committee and some had accepted the Report of the Committee.


(5) I recorded evidence in all the suits and I had also perused the documents in all cases.


(6) AREADING of the Final Report of the Committee gives me the impression that the Committee felt that it had been given only the responsibility and the necessary power to evidently implementit had not been given to it. But I must placeon record, with great respect my sincere appreciation of the work done by the Committee in trying to come to some conclusion in the matter which has enabled me to proceed further in the matter to give a finishing touch, as it were, so that as early as possible the Complex could be completed in all its shape and could be made functional for the benefit of the allottees and in the interests of the public.


(7) THE Chief Architect of the N. D. M. C. Mr. V. P. Gupta had stated before the Committee the details of the space available in the Complex, which are as follows: S. No.

Floor

Covered Area

Covd. Area



as per Comp.

After deducting



plans given

of Refuge Area



by the party

As in SL. 5



1.

Ground Floor

9054. 516

9054. 516


2.

First Floor

5500. 467

5500. 467



3.

2nd Floor

7460. 342

7460. 342



4.

3rd Floor

7460. 342

7460. 342



5.

4th Floor

7460. 342

7460. 342



6.

5th Floor

6082. 842

6740. 342



7

6th Floor

7460. 342

7460. 342



8.

7th Floor

6082. 842

6740. 342


9.

8th Floor

7460. 342

7460. 342



10.

9th Floor

7460. 342

7460. 342



11.

10th Floor

4936. 220

6928. 342



12.

11th Floor

7460. 342

7460. 342



13.

12th Floor

6681. 342



374. 220



14.

Basement I

19998. 290



15.

Basement II

19998. 290


16.

Basement III

19998. 290



Therefore, allotment has to be made in accordance with law and I have to take into account the space available as per the details given by Mr. V. P. Gupta, the Chief Architect, N. D. M. C.


(8) AT the outset, it has to be noticed no all tment could be made with reference to the Upper Basement, Middle Basement and Lower Basement. As per the sanctioned plan Upper Basement is to be used for storage. The Middle Basement and the Lower Basement could be used only for car parking. I shall deal with at the appropriate stage about the allotment made by the Committee in respect of the allottees for space in the Basements.


(9) IT is to be noted that Col. Jaswant Singh representing the Flat Buyers Association contended that Mr. Vijender Singh and the members of his family would not be entitled to any allotment because in 1977 they along with other coowners had agreed to sell the property and the agreements projected by letter dated 22. 4. 1985 and 3. 11. 1986 had been brought into existence subsequently and, therefore, the error committed by the Committee in allotting space to Mr. Vijender Singh and members of his family should be set right and the whole space must be made available only to the agreement holders.


(10) IN a matter like this, it is not necessary to go into in great detail the truth and validity of the agreements projected by Mr. Vijender Singh. Mr. Vijender Singh gave evidence in Suit No. 324/90 and I had also perused the documents. I do not want to expand the scope of the dispute in the case. I am satisfied that the documents produced by Mr. Vijender Singh are true and valid and he and the members of his family along with the owners would be entitled to allotment of space as per the agreements between the owners and the builders. The Flat Buyers Association has absolutely no locus standi at all to challenge these agreements. I permitted Mr. Jaswant Singh to cross examine Mr. Vijender Singh with a view to ascertaining the truth of the matter and Mr. Jaswant Singh representing the Flat Buyers Association cannot claim to be an adversary party to Mr. Vijender Singh and try to defeat the rights of his family for the allotment of the space.


(11) THE proceedings before me are an amalgam of various claims from different quarters and I have to focus my attention to the core of the issue and I do not want to unnecessarily get myself diverted to non issues which may ultimately confound the real points to be decided.


(12) THIS would clear the ground for me to proceed with the allotment to be made in accordance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience keeping in view the Building Rules governing the Complex.


(13) FOR the Ground Floor following are the claimants :


1. Jasvinder Singh 2. Jain Shudh 3. J. K. Arora 4. R. K. Anand 5. Vikas Bansal 6. Trakru Housing 7. S. K. Sachdeva 8. Ravinder Singh 9. C. R. Gambhir 10. V. Bahri 43 11. RL. Nijhawan 12. Tube sales 13. Rajat Ghai 14. B. M. Sachdeva. 15. Shaloo Agencies 16. Global Travels 17. Ranjit Kaur 18. S. Kapur 19. Vinod Kumari 20. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudarshan Kapur 21. Mrs. Shashi Bala Khare and four others. 22. Global Aviation Services Ltd. 23. Bharat Securities Ltd. 24. Vijender Singh 25. William Jacks and Co. 26. Global Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd. 27. Ravinder Singh Minor Beneficiary Trust


(14) BEFORE dealing with each of these cases, I have to refer to the method adopted by the Committee. The Committee had referred to the areas mentioned in the agreements of the parties. It had made allotment depending upon the percentage payment made out of the total consideration mentioned in the agreements. In all the agreements what is mentioned is only covered area. The parties had made payments as per the schedule prescribed by the builder and while considering the allotment I cannot take into account the exact amount paid by the allottees. The approach made by the Committee, in my view, is not quite correct. The agreement holders are not responsible for the present situation and, therefore, while making the allotment I cannot limit to the amounts paid by the allottees and, therefore, allotments have to be made on the basis of the area mentioned in the agreements and priorities are to be given reckoning the dates of the agreements. Some agreement holders while they claim space in the Ground Floor the Committee had been allotted in the 5th floor. In the final report no reasons had been given for this but in Annexure I while mentioning the allotment I find the allotments made in different floors.


(15) IN Annexure J the plans are given and specific allotments are also mentioned. For instance, in the first page relating to the Ground Floor, the plan shows the existence of Flats from G-l to G-12 but the actual area relating to each of these Flats is not mentioned. For instance, G-l is shown in the plan but what exactly is the area indicated by G-l is not known. G-l Flat is allotted to Mr. C. R. Gambhir and in Annexure I the allotment is for 1400 sq. ft. In the right hand side while mentioning the names of allottees as against G-l name of Mr. Chandrani Gambhir is mentioned but 2000 sq. ft. is referred to. There is no co-relation made between the exact measurement of G-l and the allotment to the particular individual. With reference to each of the floors a site plan has to be prepared and to be given to individual allottees showing the Flat number and also the area allotted which will clothe the allottee with complete right, title and interest in the Flat and the other rights in the Complex with reference to common areas.


(16) I shall now proceed to deal with the individual cases. The area available in the Ground Floor is 9054 sq. ft. but the entire area cannot be allotted. There should be space for free movement when repairs are effected. Some construction may have to be chiselled out. There should not be too much crowd in any floor. Therefore, allotment is restricted to the extent of 7,960 sq. ft.



(17) MR. Jasvinder Singh entered into agreement with Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. on 28. 12. 1977 for a covered area of 440 sq. ft. @ Rs. 750. 00 per sq. ft. The payments made by the allottees may not be very much relevant now but all the allottees had made substantial payments to the builders who had left the allottees in the lurch. Mr. Jasvinder Singh instituted Suit No. 2217/87 and that was decreed and he filed execution No. 142/91. He claims G-6 in the Ground Floor and the Committee has allotted G-6 to him. He had paid Rs. 3,80,020. 00 towards the consideration over the agreed price of Rs. 3,73,740/. He had paid 101. 79%. Therefore, Mr. Jasvinder Singh is entitled to the allotment. He is allotted 440 sq. ft. on the Ground Floor.


(18) M/s. Jain Shudh Associates claim 440 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 3. 1. 1978. This will be dealt with a little later.


(19) MR. J. K. Arora had filed objections on 2. 4. 1994 in I. A. Nos. 1456/95,1457/ 95 and he filed on 25. 7. 1994 in I. A. 1463/93. In I. A. 1456/95, Smt. Joginder Kaur Arora, Mr. Simon Arora, Mr. Sandeep Jr. Arora and Bawa Mandeep Singh Arora minor through his mother. According to them, they agreed to purchase Flat No. G-9a, Ground Floor measuring 1050 sq. ft. According to them, the agreement was entered on 12. 1. 1978. They had made the payment of Rs. 8,34,900. 00. According to them, possession was given to them on 13. 2. 1991. In this I. A. the following relief is claimed:


"it is,therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to ignore or expunge the comments/report of the Committee appointed by this Hon'ble Court insofar as it impinge upon the rights of the applicant/objector in occupation of the Flat in question and may further be pleased to Flat in question and may further be pleased to direct that the Committee was not competent to go into this question or to make a report in respect thereof. The objection petition be accepted. "

Mr. Sandeep Jr. Arora, who is residing at 194, Brooklands Road, Sale, Cheshire, U. K. had filed the affidavit.


(20) IN I. A. 1457/95 the following relief is prayed for :


"it is,therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to ignore or expunge the comments/report of the Committee appointed by this Hon'ble Court insofar as it impinge upon the rights of the applicant/objector in occupation of the Flat in question and may further be pleased to Flat in question and may further be pleased to direct that the Committee was not competent to go into this question or to make a report in respect thereof. The objection petition be accepted. "

What is emphasised is that the petitioners had booked three Flats and only one allotment is made. In I. A. 1463/95 the following relief is claimed :"it is, therefore, prayed that the Report of the Committee of January, 1994 be set aside or remitted for reconsideration inter alia on the grounds raised both objections, petitions and this petition of objection be accepted and for this act of kindness the objectors shall always pray. "


(21) THE party has not given any evidence, has not filed any documents and, therefore, it is very difficult to accept the report of the Committee in making allotment to Mrs. Joginder Kaur Arora. Mrs. Joginder Kaur Arora shall be at liberty to institute proceedings for the recovery of the amounts paid by them against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. The claim of the objectors is, therefore, rejected.


(22) MR. Vikas Bansal had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 28. 3. 1978. The original agreement was between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Abhey Kumar Vashisht, (2) Mrs. Neerja Vashisht, (3) Mr. Surinder Nayar, and (4) Mr. Ashok Nayar for covered area of 500 sq. ft. @ Rs. 670. 00 per sq. ft. The Flat mentioned in the agreement is G-9. Mr. Vikas Bansal claimed that he got the assignment from the above four persons on 8. 4. 1985. He had instituted Suit No. 3797/92. Mr. Satya Pal Bansal, duly constituted attorney of Mr. Vikas Bansal examined himself as Public Witness. I on 30. 8. 1996. Mr. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyers Association cross-examined him. According to the witness, a sum of Rs. 3,76,000. 00 have been paid as againsta total price ofrs. 3,86,250. 00. Thecommittee had allotted 341 sq ft. and Flat number is G-11.


(23) I am not inclined to accept the Report of the Committee about the allotment of 341 sq. ft. when the covered area of 500 sq. ft. had been booked by the party. The agreement holder Mr. Vikas Bansal is entitled to 500 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor. Therefore, he is allotted 500 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor.


(24) MRS. Raj Dulari Trakru representing Trakru Housing Corporation claimed an area of 1000 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 9. 2. 1979. She had filed Suit No. 1743/91. The agreement on 9. 2. 1979 was between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and (1) Smt. Asha Carg, (2) Smt. Kiran Garg, (3) Smt. Kumud Garg, and (4) Smt. Veena Garg. The area is 1000 sq. ft. at Rs. 600. 00 per sq. ft. C-8 is the Flat. 0nl8. 6. 1981 the aforesaid four persons assigned the rights to plaintiff. Mr. Lalit Trakru son of the plaintiff gave evidence as Public Witness. I. Documents Ex. P. I to P. 29 were marked. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 7,64,000. 00 asagainsttheconsiderationofrs. 7,06,000. 00 , which is noted by the Committee but the claim of Public Witness. I is that a sum of Rs. 1,64,000. 00 has been over paid as against the consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. In all the cases Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. did not appear and was set ex parte. The plaintiff has prayed for specific performance.


(25) I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the allotment of covered area of 1000 sq. ft. The common areas need not be taken into account for the purpose of allotment.


(26) THE Committee has allotted G-7 and the physical area is mentioned as 700 sq. ft. The Committee had assumed that what was booked was 1,000 sq. ft. super area whereas what was booked was 1,000 sq. ft. covered area. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the allotment of 1,000 sq. ft. The plaintiff is allotted 1,000 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor.


(27) MR. S. K. Sachdeva has claimed a covered area of 1050 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 22. 3. 1980. According to him. Flat No. was G-5a. The Committee allotted 735 sq. ft. in Flat No. G-5b. According to the Committee, he had paid Rs. 845,250. 00 as against the consideration of Rs. 7,41,300. 00. He had filed Suit No. 1943/96. The plaintiff examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 13. 9. 1996. Documents Ex. P. 1 to P. 20 were marked. Though agreement refers to Car Parking space the plaintiff has claimed only the Flat. In the relief paragraph, the plaintiff has claimed specific performance. The plaintiff has claimed Flat No. G-5a or G-5b. The Committee has allotted, as I noticed above. Flat No. G-5b of an extent of 735 sq. ft. The Committee had noted that plaintiff had paid 114. 02%


(28) I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the area of 1050 sq. ft. The plaintiff is allotted 1050 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor.


(29) MRS. C. R. Gambhir claimed 2000 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 20. 11. 1981. The Committee had noted that a sum of Rs. 22,02,500. 00 had been paid as against the consideration of Rs. 19,82,000. 00. The original agreement was between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Chemical and Mineral Distributors. The Flats booked were G-2, G-3, and G-4 covering an area of 2000 sq. ft. The rate was Rs. 900. 00 per sq. ft. On-15. 2. 1985 the plaintiff got the assignment from the original agreement holders. The total consideration payable was Rs. 18 lakhs and the plaintiff had paid Rs. 22,02,500. 00. The plaintiff had prayed for the relief of specific performance against Skippers Towers Pvt. Ltd. , Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. , Mr. Tejwant Singh and Mr. V. K. Saluja, Director Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. in Suit No. 2056/92. Mr. Ranjit Gambhir son of Mrs. C. R. Gambhir was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 8. 8. 1996. According to Public Witness. I the amount payable under the agreement was Rs. 18 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 4,02,500. 00 had been paid in excess. Public Witness. 1 had also stated that the plaintiff was prepared to pay extra amount. The witness had proved the documents also. The Committee had allotted 1,400 sq. ft. in Flat No. G-l.


(30) I am not able to subscribe to the allotment made by the Committee and I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the allotment of 2,000 sq. ft. covered area. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to 2,000 sq. ft. and the plaintiff is allotted 2,000 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor.


(31) MR. Virender Bahri had claimed an area of 500 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 30. 4. 1982. The Committee had noted that a sum of Rs. 5,43,000. 00 had been paid as against consideration of Rs. 4,24,250. 00. That amounts to 128. 18% payment had been made. The Committee had allotted Flat G-8 and an area (if 350 sq. ft. Mr. Virender Singh along with his son Mr. Gautam Bahri and Gautam Sons Trust had filed Suit No. 3688/92 for specific performance. Mr. Virender Bahri was examined as Public Witness. I, on 29. 8. 1996. According to him, he is the Karta of the HUF Virender Bahri Gautam Bahri and plaintiff No. 2 Bahri Sons HUF is also under his control and he is the managing Trustee of plaintiff No. 3 Gautam Sons Trust. Documents Ex. P. 1 to P. 5, P. 4/1 and P. 4/2 have been proved. According to the witness, a sum of Rs. l,68,800. 00 had been over paid.


(32) THE plaintiffs have established their claim for 500 sq. ft. and the allotment of 350 sq. ft. is not proper. Accordingly, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to 500 sq. ft. The plaintiffs are allotted 500 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor.


(33) MR. Bansilal Nijhawan (B. L. Nijhawan) has claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 15. 12. 1983. The Committee had noted that a sum of Rs. 5,62,800. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 3,76,750. 00. That amounts to 149. 39% had been paid. The Committee had allotted 350 sq. ft. physical area in Flat Nos. G-12 and 308a. He and his wife Mrs. Lalita Nijhawan had filed Suit No. 2191/96 claiming the relief of specific performance. Mr. Bansi Lal Nijhawan examined himself as Public Witness. 1 and he proved Ex. P. I to P. 25. According to him. Flat No. G-10a was the subjectmatter of the agreement. The total consideration @ Rs. 650. 00 per sq. ft. was Rs. 3,25,000. 00.


(34) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have established their claim for 500 sq. ft. I am not able to appreciate the allotment of G-12 and 308a to the plaintiffs. I hereby directtheallotmentof500 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor.


(35) M/s. Tube Sales Pvt. Ltd. had claimed 760 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 17. 1. 1984. The Committee had noted payment of Rs. 7,86,642. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 7,53,160. 00. The Committee has noted that 104. 18% has been paid. The Committee had allotted an area of 532 naming the Flat as C-2. What was booked according to Tube Sales Pvt. Ltd. that was Flat G-10. The rate was Rs. 900. 00 per sq. ft. Tube Sales Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 2314/96 for specific performance. According to the plaintiff, the agreement in the first instance was between S. Gurcharan Singh and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and the plaintiff obtained an assignment from the agreement vendee on 8. 6. 1984. Mr. Sunil Gupta, Executive Director of the Company was examined on 10. 10. 1996 as Public Witness. I and he proved documents marked as Ex. P. I to P. 13. The Committee had assumed that what was booked was 760 super area and deducting 30% for common area had allotted 532 sq. ft.


(36) I am not able to see any justification for the course adopted by the Committee. The plaintiff is entitled to the allotment the entire area of 760 sq. ft. The plaintiff is allotted 760 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor.


(37) MR. Rajat Ghai has claimed 150 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 24. 5. 1985. The Committee had noted the payment of Rs. l,76,900. 00 as against the cost of Rs. l,48,650. 00 and Mr. Rajat Ghai had paid 119% of the price agreed. The Committee had allotted 105 sq. ft. naming the Flat No. G-5a. Mr. Rajat Ghai had filed Suit No. 2990/92. In the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the agreement was for 150 sq. ft. @ Rs. 900. 00 per sq. ft. and the shop space G-4c was ear marked for the plaintiff. The plaintiff had paid Rs. l,28,350. 00 and further sum of Rs. 47,840. 00. The defendants Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. demanded further amounts and the plaintiff paid the following: L & DO conversion charges Rs. 11

000. 00



Fire fighting charges Rs. 7

860. 00



Marble/stone finishing Rs. 11

640. 00



Aluminium doors and windows Rs. 13

740. 00



Tinted/imported sink Class Rs. 2

250. 00



Electrification charges Rs. 1

350. 00


Mr. M. V. Pande, the power attorney of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. I on 16. 8. 1996. Mr. B. K. Ghai is the father and natural guardian of Mr. Rajat Ghai,who is stated to be of unsound mind. Therefore, the allotment has to be made to Mr. B. K. Ghai and the possession of the property to be given to Mr. B. K. Ghai. The plaintiff has agreed to pay any further amount that may be directed by this Court towards the Flat. The plaintiff is allotted of 150 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor.


(38) MR. B. M. Sachdev who is shown at serial No. 14 in Annexure I in the Report in respect of Ground Floor has not appeared and has not made any claim before the Court. Therefore, his claim stands rejected.


(39) MRS. Vinod Kumari Jain had filed Suit No. 2594/91 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for a declaration that the canceling of the agreement dated 20. 6. 1988 and forfeiting the earnest money of Rs. l,ll,000. 00 isbad in law and for recovery of Rs. 1,11,000. 00 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of plaint. No one appeared for the plaintiff and the suit is dismissed for default.


(40) M/s. Bharatsecurities Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 2890/96againstskipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. , Mr. Kailash Chandra, Mr. Mahender Kumar and Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma. According to the plaintiff, plaintiff and defendants2to4applied for allotment of office space to be constructed by the first defendant. By communication dated22. 12. 1987/1. 2. 1989 they were allotted space of 60 U sq. ft. on the ground floor mentioned as Flat G-4d. Defendants 2 to 4 had paid Rs. 2,10,000. 00 by cheque No. 86040 dated 1. 2. 1989 drawn on New Bank of India, Connaught Place. The plaintiff approached defendants 2 to 4 offering to buy the Flat from them. Those defendants agreed and wrote to the first defendant on 14. 10. 1991 to transfer Flat G-4d in the name of the plaintiff-Company. Defendants 2 to 4 had received money from the plaintiff before writing the letter dated 14. 10. 1991. By letter dated 15. 10. 1991 first defendant confirmed the transfer of the Flat in the name of the plaintiff. First defendant also stated that the keys of the Flat could be collected from defendants 2 to 4. On 16. 10. 1991 defendants 2 to 4 handed over possession of Flat G-4d measuring 600 sq. ft. to the plaintiff. On 2. 12. 1991 the plaintiff applied to N. D. M. C. for making necessary mutation in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had to execute indemnity bond and to pay Rs. 40,000. 00 towards deposit. The Committee by order dated 5. 1. 1993 had ordered dispossession of the plaintiff-Company. The plaintiff filed objections to the Final Report by the Committee. On these allegations, the plaintiff had prayed for the relief of declaration and for specific performance.


(41) MR. Rakesh Kumar Jain, a director of the plaintiff-Company was examined as Public Witness. I on 11. 12. 1996. I have gone through the documents. I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has proved its claim for allotment and I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have made the payment to the builder. Taking a sympathetic view of the matter, I direct the payment of Rs. 9,00,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(42) MRS. Ravinder Kaur Anand had filed Suit No. 698/97 on the basis of agreement dated 12. 1. 1978 and a sum of Rs. 7,92,000. 00 had been paid. The Committee had recommended allotment of 652 sq. ft. Flat No. G-3. Now none had appeared for the plaintiff to substantiate her claim. In view of the fact that the allottees have to pay more money for making the Complex functional, the plaintiff must have appeared and give her consent apart from proving her claim. As late as in 1991 cash payment of Rs. l,17,000. 00 had been made on 27. 2. 1991 when there was an order of injunction against the builder by this Court. The transaction does not appear to be a genuine one. Accordingly, the claim is rejected granting liberty to the plaintiff to seek recovery from the defendant.


(43) IN I. A. 1500/95 in Suit No. 324/90objection is filed by Mr. Ravinder Singh Minor's Beneficiary Trust. It is stated in the petition that on 30. 9. 1981 the objector applied for allotment of 2 Flats of 730 sq. ft. @ Rs. 730. 00 per sq. ft. which included conversion charges. It is stated that on 11. 12. 1990 the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. informed the objector that Flat No. G-9 measuring 1,000 sq. ft. had been allotted and full and final payment had been received. The objector states that the Committee erred in reducing the area to 700 sq. ft. from 1,000 sq. ft. The Committee had allotted G-9 and 111-C to the objector. According to the objector the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. put the objector in possession of G-9 on 1. 12. 1990. Along with the objection petition the objector had filed receipts showing the payment made by it to the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and letters from Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and statement of account. The receipt No. 1590 dated 30. 9. 1981 is for Rs. 75,000. 00 for cheque No. 336338. The Flat number stated is G-6. Receipt 1589 dated 30. 9. 1981 is for a sum of Rs. 75,000. 00 for cheque No. 336340 dated 30. 9. 1981 for Flat No. G-6. It is not explained by the objector the purpose of these two receipts for the same Flat G-6. The case of the objector that it applied for two Flats appears to be not correct. The objector had filed copy of receipt No. 1190 dated 23. 6. 1984 which shows payment of Rs. I lakh cash for Flat No. G-6a. The area is not clear. Copy of Receipt No. 1079 dated 3. 2. 1984 shows payment of Rs. I lakh cash for Flat No. 6a, floor area 730 sq. ft. Receipt No. 1861 dated 20. 8. 1985 is filed which shows payment of Rs. 77,375. 00. The recei shows that the objector intended to pay for Flat UB-7 and G-6a and floor area is. mentioned as 1025. This is also not explained by the objector in the petition. Objector perhaps thought that by filing a copy of the receipt is proof of the contents thereof and it was under no obligation to explain to the Court. It is also not stated in the receipt whether payment was by way of cash or by cheque or draft. It is quite understandable as to how the builder and the objector could be party to such a vague document when the receipt is produced to show payment of large sum of Rs. 75. 375. 00. Receipt No. 1191 dated 23. 6. 1984 for Rs. l,87,040. 00 and the payment is made by cash for Flat G-6a, floor area 1122 sq. ft. Receipt No. 2224 dated 3. 3. 1986 is to show the payment of Rs. l,50,000. 00 by way of draft No. 0118338 dated 3. 3. 1986 for Flat G-6a, floor area 1000 sq. ft. A xerox copy of the demand draft is also produced.


(44) THE objector had filed a copy of the letter dated 8. 12. 1990 from the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. slating that allotment of Flat No. G-9 measuring 1000 sq. ft. is confirmed. The objector had also filed a copy of the letter dated 11. 12. 1990 stating that the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had received full and final payment for Flat No. G-9 measuring 1000 sq. ft. The statement of account as on 11. 12. 1990 is filed by the objector which shows that a sum of Rs. 10,78,600. 00 had been paid by the objector. A copy of the floor plan is also filed.


(45) MR. Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the objector submitted that the objector had entered into the agreement on 30. 9. 1981 and, therefore, the transaction is genuine and the objector was put in possession and the objector is entitled to the allotment of 1000 sq. ft. Flat No. G-9.


(46) THE objector has not filed any agreement and relies upon only on receipts. The payments made by the objector would not show the contract between the parties. Nobody had come forward to give evidence on behalf of the Trust. Though the Committee had made allotment of 700 sq. ft. . Flats G-9 and 111c, the basis on which allotment made is not given by the Committee in the Final Report. One cannot go by the receipt produced by the party which mentions dated 30. 9. 1981. The party is bound to appear before Court and establishes his case. I am of the view that the objector has not made out any case for allotment. The objector is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings against the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the amount paid by it. The objection petition is dismissed.


(47) MR. B. D. Khare, Mrs. Shashi Bala Khare, Mr. Babu Ram Khare, Master Varun Khare, Mr. B. D. Khare (HUF) and Mr. Babu Ram Khare (HUF) have come forward with claims for allotment of Flats G-1a, G-2a, G-IA (1), G-3a, G-IA (3) and G1a (2) respectively. They filed I. A. 1464/95 on 15. 7. 1994 objecting to the report of the Committee. They have also filed Suit No. 1947/96.


(48) MR. Aman Lekhi advanced arguments on behalf of these claimants. He gave the following details about the owner, date of allotment, rate and price and when possession was given by the builder to these allottees: APPLIED ALLOTTED PAYMENT POSSESSION LETTER



Shri B. D. Khare 10/1/1988 date: 4/7/89 date: 10. 1. 8813. 11. 90


flat:g-IA, Ground amount: 10,000. 00



area: 395 sq. ft. date:28. 6. 89



rate: 900 per sq. ft. amount: 1,00,000



price: 3,55,500. 00 date: 4. 7. 89



amount: 2,45,500. 00



Smt. Shashi Bala 10/1/1988 date:12/7/89 date: 10. 1. 8813. 11. 90



flat: G-2a, Ground amount: 10. 000. 00



area: 395 sq. ft. date: 28. 6. 89



rate: 900per sq. ft. amount: 1,00,000



price: 3,55,500. 00 date: 12. 7. 89



amount; 2,45,500. 00



Shri Babu Ram 21/11/1989 date: 21/11/89 date: 21. 11. 8913. 11. 90



Khare flat:g-IA, (1) Ground amount: 3,82,500. 00



area: 425 sq. ft. date: 25. 11. 89



rate: 900per sq. ft. amount:3,82,500. 00


price:3,82,500. 00



Master Varun 10/01/1988 date:12/08/89 date: 10. 1. 8813. 11. 90



Khare flat:g-3a, Ground amount: 10,000. 00



area: 395 sq. ft. date: 28. 6. 89



rate: 900per so. ft. amount: 1,00,000



price: 3,55,500. 00 date: 12. 8. 89



amount: 2,45,500. 00







Shri B. D. Khare 7/3/1990 date: 7/3/90 date: 7. 3. 90 21. 11. 90



(HUF) flat: G-IA (3), Ground amount: l,91,250. 00



area: 212. 5 sq. ft. date: 7. 3. 90



rate: 900 per sq. ft. amount: 10,000. 00



price:1,91,250. 00



Shri Baburam 2/1/1990 date: 2/1/90 date: 2. 1. 90 13. 11. 90



Khare (HUF) flat:g-IA (2), Ground amount: 1,91,250. 00



area: 212. 5 sq. ft. date: 28. 6. 89



rate: 900 per sq. ft.



price: l,91,250. 00


The Committee directed the dispossession of these allottees on the ground that they had no right to be in possession and the builder did not have the right to put them in possession of the Flats. Mr. Aman Lekhi appearing for them submitted that the Committee had no authority directing the dispossession of these allottees, they could be evicted from the premises only by filing suits for recovery of possession and after obtaining a decree against them in a Civil Court, the Flat buyers mentioned in Annexure I to the report can claim possession only in the manner contemplated by Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Flat buyers cannot claim any portion of the Complex on the basis of the recommendation contained in the Report.


(49) ARTICLE 300a of the Constitution protects these allottees. The High Court cannot delegate its judicial function to the Committee and inasmuch as the Committee had assumed the role of a Civil Court. It is bad in law. The orders appointing the Committee refer to the Committee as Receiver and the Committee had only the power that could be comprehended within the meaning of Order 4u Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and these allottees come within the ambit of Order 40 Rule 2, CPC. If the possession of the allottees considered illegal resort could be had to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Committee had not properly understood the meaning of possession. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned Counsel submitted that the allottees cannot be dispossessed as recommended by the Committee in its report. He referred to the order dated 1. 10. 1991 by this Court referring the matter to the Commission is one of the questions posed by this Court is "which of the Flat buyers are entitled to possess Flats and the extent of area which is to be handed over to them?" The learned Counsel submitted that Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which is a substantive law is clear about the mode for recovery of possession of immovable property. Section 5 reads as under:


"recovery of specific immovable property.-A person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908).


(50) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel the mode of recovery is to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure. The allottees mentioned in Annexure I who filed suits and the materials produced by the allottees have to be examined by a Civil Court. Thereupon a judgment has to be pronounced under Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A decree has to be drawn up and which alone would entitle the allottees to proceed under Order 21, C. P. C. for recovery of possession. The learned Counsel relied upon Article 300a of the Constitution of India, which reads as under :


"persons nut to be deprived of property save by authority of law - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. "

The learned Counsel submitted that the question of entitlement would involve exercise of judicial discretion after proper application of mind to the peculiar facts of each case. This function could be discharged only by the Court and that cannot be delegated to a Committee. He relied upon the following passage in BROOM's LEGAL MAXIMS, pages 571-572 :"it may, likewise, be well to observe that delegated jurisdiction, as distinguished from proper jurisdiction, is that which is communicated by a Judge to some other person, who acts in his name, and is called a deputy; and this jurisdiction is, in law, held to be that of the Judge who appoints the deputy, and not of the deputy; and in this case the maxim holds, delegatus non poest delegate: the person to whom any office or duty is delegated - for example, an Arbitrator - cannot lawfully devolve the duty on another, unless he be expressly authorised so to do (i). Nor can an individual clothed with judicial functions, delegate the discharge of those functions to another, unless, as in the case of a County Court Judge, he be expressly empowered to do so (k). For the ordinary rule is that, although a ministerial officer may appoint a deputy, a judicial officer cannot (l). "

He relied upon the observation of the Supreme Court in the cases reported in 1951 Vol. II SCR 747 (In Re: Article 143 Constitution of India and Delhi Laws Act (1912) etc. 1951 S. C. 332). The learned Counsel relied upon the following passage to show that the Committee cannot go into the question of dispossession :"the question can be posed thus : Why is delegation peculiarly a content of legislative power and not of judicial power? In my judgment, it is a content of none of the three State powers, legislative, judicial or executive. It is, on the other hand, incidental to the exercise of all power inasmuch as it is necessary delegate for the proper discharge of all these three public duties. No public functionary can himself perform all the duties he is privileged to perform unaided by agents and delegates, but from this circumstance it does not follow that he can delegate the exercise of his judgment and discretion to others. One may well ask, why is a Legislature formed with such meticulous care by all constitution makers? Why do they take pains to lay down the procedure to be followed by an elected Legislature in its function of law-making? Why do they define its different functions and lay down the methods by which it shall act? The only answer that reasonably can be given to these queries is: "because the constitution trusts to the judgment of the body constituted in the manner indicated in the constitution and to the exercise of its discretion by following the procedure prescribed therein. " On the same principle the Judges are not allowed to surrender their judgment to others. It is they and they alone who are trusted with the decision of a case. They can however, delegate ancillary powers to others. . . "

The learned Counsel referred to Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under :" (2) The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. "


The learned Counsel submitted that no Judge can delegate to the Commissioner the trial of any material issue which it is bound to try. He relied upon the following decisions:1. Ashgarali and Others v. Secy. of State and Others, AIR 1930 Calcutta 764. 2. Alimahomed Akbarally v. Shamsuddin Dadamiya, AIR 1928 Bombay 145. 3. Vavarthar Abdul Wahab Sahed Pallapotha Kanaka Anjaney alu and Others, AIR 1935 Madras 888. 4. Brij Lal v. Ram Pratap, AIR 1982 Delhi 149. 5. Municipal Board, Etah v. Mt. Asghari Jan, AIR 1932 Allahabad 264. 6. Ugra Narain Choudhary and Others v. Haribans Choudhary and Others, AIR 1930 Patna 557

He referred to the judgment of the Orissa High Court reported in (1990) I Orissa Law Report 201 at page 205 for the proposition that the report of a Commissioner is accepted only after considering the objections and it becomes merely a piece of evidence and it has no better sanctity than any other evidence. The learned Counsel referred to the order dated 20. 11. 1991 and he referred to the following part of that order:"accordingly, it is ordered that the legal possession of the property namely, Skipper Towers, 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, shall stand transferred to and shall be deemed to have been assumed by the Committee which was appointed on October 1, 1991. The Committee will take all suitable measures to protect the possession of the property. However, the committee will not disturb the possession of the Flat buyers/allottees to whom the possession has already been given. In case however Committee finds that the possession has been handed over in violation of the orders which were passed from time to time, the Committee after hearing such of the persons who are likely to be affected by its orders, pass appropriate directions and take necessary steps to recover possession from unauthorised persons. The Committee is hereby conferred with all the necessary powers under Order 40 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. to effectuate the purpose of this order. "

Sub rule 2 of Order 40 Rule I Civil Procedure Code. reads as under :" (2) Nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to remove from the possession or cus tody of property any person whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove. "

The learned Counsel submitted that the Committee had no right to remove the allottees and, therefore, the Committee had exceeded its jurisdiction. The learned Counsel relied upon the opinion expressed in Vol. V (10th Edition) the Commentaries by the All India Reports on Civil Procedure Code. , which is in the following terms :-" (5) The Court does not, while considering the question whether a receiver should be appointed, arrive at any final decision on the merits of the case. Its aim is merely to preserve the status quo ante during litigation. (7) When a person is in bonafide possession of the property in dispute, his possession should not be disturbed by appointment of receiver unless there is some substantial ground for such interference, such as a well founded fear that the property in suit will be dissipated or other irreparable mischief may be done unless the Court appoints a receiver. The plaintiff must not only show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, he must further show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action and further the plaintiff's own right must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. "


According to the learned Counsel the person seeking to interfere with the person in possession must prove a perfected right which is clear and free from doubt. The learned Counsel submitted that the Committee, according to the learned Counsel, are Commissioners, exceeded their jurisdiction in passing the order dated 5. 1. 1993 in and by which they directed the eviction of 29 Flat buyers and it cannot be said that the persons mentioned in Annexure I to the Report, whose rights are clear and free from doubt. The learned Counsel referred to the observations of the Committee at para 4. 9. 5, which is as under:"4. 9. 5. We fear that moment the building is unsealed under the order of the Court, the above noted Flat buyers in possession may rush into the building and occupy the portions they are occupying prior to selling. They may raise the specious argument that they have not been dispossessed in accordance with law and they were merely prevented from having access to the building. Our recommendation in the Interim Report was that they should be dispossessed. It is true that they have not been dispossessed under the orders of the Court but by reason of sealing of the premises they have lost possession. The sealing of the premises in the view of this Committee has proved a blessing in disguise. These persons according to our recommendations had to be dispossessed. Since they are not more in physical possession they should not be allowed to re-enter the premises and should not be allowed to occupy their previous portion in the building. "

The learned Counsel submitted that the concept on possession has not been properly appreciated by the Commissioners. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Privy Council reported in Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy and Others, 51 Indian Appeals 293. He referred to passage at 299 which states "in India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court". The learned Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court has affirmed the above principle in the case reported in Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LRs. v. Mrs. Shobha venkat Rao, AIR 1989 S. C. 2097. The learned Counsel relied upon the passage at page 2100, which is as follows:"it is a well settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. "


(51) THE learned Counsel Mr. Aman Lekhi referred to Section. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Section 6 reads as under :


" (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, be suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding may other title that may be set up in such suit. "

He submitted that the words 'otherwise than in due course of law' have been subjected to judicial legal interpretation. He relied upon Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary (11th Edition) which would explain the words 'due course of law'. The passage is as follows:"to read the words 'due course of law' as mere equivalent to the world 'legally' is to deprive them of a force and a significance which they carry on their very face. For a thing which is perfectly legal, may still be by no means a thing done in due course of law; to enable this phrase to be predicated of, it is essential, speaking generally, that the thing should have been submitted to the consideration and pronouncement of the law and due course of law means the regular normal process and effect of the law operating on a matter which has been laid before it for adjudication. That is the primary and natural meaning of the phrase through may be applied in a derived or secondary sense to other proceedings held under the direct authority of the law; in this sense it may be said, for instance, that revenue or taxes are collected in 'due course of law'. "

The learned Counsel also referred to a passage in Law of Specific Relief (8th Edition 1988) at page 68 by Banerjee, which reads as follows :""due course of law" - The dispossession must be otherwise than in "due course of law". This expression means the regular, normal process and effect of the law operating on a matter which has been laid before the Court for adjudication. That is, the regular normal process and operation of the law invoked by the ordinary method of a civil suit, and applicable, or a judicial proceeding which may even be criminal in its nature. "

The learned Counsel relying upon the above passages submitted that dispossession must be in accordance with law and any suggestion contra would be an invitation to anarchy and the repugnant to the rule of law. According to the learned Counsel the Commissioners have done what is prohibited by law. Learned Counsel also elaborated his submissions on the question of possession. He referred to Dias on Jurisprudence (5th Edition) page 272 where the learned Author had quoted the words of Roskill LJ which say "having something in one's possession does not mean of necessity that one must actually have it on one's person. " The learned Counsel referred to apassage in a case decided by this Court reported in 0m Prakash Jain v. Sh. Hans Raj @ Ors. , 1994 (30) DRJ 597. This Court had observed:"possession is flexible term and is not necessarily restricted to mere actual possession of the property. The legal conception of possession may be in various forms. The two elements of possession are the corpus and the animus. A person though in physical possession may not be in possession in the eye of law, if the animus be lacking. On? the contrary, to be in possession, it is not necessary that one must be in actual physical contact.?


The objectors/allottees are in a position to resume actual control of the Flats. They are not only in possession in fact, but in law also. The learned Counsel submitted explaining the meaning of 'sealing'. He referred to Aiyar Judicial Dictionary, 11 th Edition at page 1019 which states "sealed container merely means a container which is so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fasting. " The learned Counsel submitted that Municipal Authority does not have possession of Complex. To constitute possession by the Municipal Authority it has to hold the Complex on its own account. The Municipal Authority has merely custody of the building. The learned Counsel referred to Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition) page 384forthepurposeofexplainingthemeaningofword 'custody'. It is stated therein as under:"the care and control of a thing or person. The keeping, guarding, care, watch, inspection, preservation or security of a thing, carrying with it the idea of the thing being within the immediate personal care and control of the persons to whose custody it is subjected. Immediate charge and control, and not the final, absolute control of ownership, implying responsibility for the protection and preservation of the thing in custody. "

The learned Counsel submitted that notwithstanding sealing of the Complex the objectors still retain possession of the Flats and the dispossession by the Committee is not in accordance with due course of law and this Court should not sanctify the same by putting its seal of approval. The order of sealing was challenged in C. W. P. No. 3416/93 and the matter of sealing is subjudice and the Committee cannot go into that question.


(52) THE learned Counsel referring to the principle of 'first come first serve' mentioned by the Committee submitted that no doubt the priority of occupancy would cloth the person with a valid title and now the law is developed and priority in occupancy is of little practical application. He referred to page 227-228 Brown Legal Maxims where the learned Author would state :


"it is indeed true, that an unappropriated tract of land, or a desert island, may legitimately be seized and reduced into possession by the first occupant, and, consequently, that the title to colonial possession may, and in some cases does, in fact, depend upon priority of occupation. But within the limits of this country, and between subjects, it is apprehended that the maxim has no longer any direct application as regards the acquisition of title to realty by entry and occupation. "

According to the learned Counsel, the maxim will not be of any application to the Flats in the Complex in question. According to the learned Counsel, the Committee had not considered the applicability of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. That section reads as under:"19. Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title - Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be enforced against - (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. "


The learned Counsel submitted that even according to the learned Author Mr. Broom even under the maxim qui prior ext tempore potior est juri a latera purchaser, who purchases without notice, and who afterwards acquires the legal estate, may hold it as a rule against one whose equitable title is prior in point of time (page231). Thecommitteehadnowherestatedthattheobjectorshadnoticeof prior claims. The learned Counsel commented on the reference made by the Committee to Section 48 of. the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Committee it self had said that provisions of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply. The learned Counsel submitted that equity follows the law and where a rule, either of the common law or statute law, is direct and governs the case with all its circumstances, or the particular point, a Court of equity is as much bound by as a Court of law and can be little justify a departure from it. He drew support from Shell's Equity (29th Edition) page 29. The learned Counsel proceeded to submit in this behalf that Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 would apply to the present case and that cannot be disregarded by invoking equitable doctrines which arc not applicable to the facts of the present case.


(53) THE learned Counsel submitted that it is not known as to how the cut off date 31. 12. 1986 was notified by the Committee. The learned Counsel submitted that the scheme of allotment is not final and the Committee itself had observed that the same may be riddled with the errors. The learned Counsel submitted that the scheme of allotment would reveal that the areas allotted to the Flat buyers is fixed in accordance with the proportion of payments made by the Flat buyers. The Committee had allotted in some cases area as low as 70 sq. ft. serial No. 88 at page 164,98 sq. ft. serial Nos. 89-90 and some allottees had beenjust22 sq. ft. of area. They are mentioned at serial Nos. 166, 167 and 168. Some allottees have been given between 53 and 62 sq. ft. of area. The learned Counsel submitted this should show that the Committee had not been practical in deciding the allotment of areas to Flat buyers.


(54) THE learned Counsel submitted that the Committee has done that which even Courts can not do and by allotting space different from what has been booked. The learned Counsel submitted that Court can construe a contract but construct one. The learned Counsel submitted that the objectors are not parties to any of the suits pending before this Court. They had not aided and abetted any violation of the orders passed by this Court. According to the learned Counsel that a purchase made after order of injunction is not necessarily a purchase in contempt of Court unless in making the purchase the purchaser has made willful violation of the order of a Court or is aiding and abetting the person against whom the order has been passed. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the following cases:


1. Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Shahi Deo v. Sara Lal Durgh Prasad Nath Shahi Deo and Others, AIR 1949 Patna 39. 2. Seaward v. Paterson, 1897 (1) Chancery Division 54. 3. Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and Another, AIR 1991 Madras 323.


(55) THE learned Counsel vehemently submitted that this Court also does not have any inherent power to dispossess the objectors. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Padam Sen and Another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 S. C. 218 and Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 S. C. 527.


(56) THE submission of the learned Counsel has to be considered in the light of what had happened in this case. In 1987 suits had been instituted. The builder had acted contrary to the basic principles of fair play and justice and had received monies from various persons promising allotment of Flats, issuing receipts indiscriminately and without the agreements being engrossed instamp papers and there has been no standard followed by the builder in entering into contracts with intending buyers. This Court was invited to consider the plight of the agreement holders and to safe guards the interests of all concerned passed orders restraining the builder from dealing with the property. This objector had come into the picture in 1989 and when they were entering into agreements with the builder they were expected to act prudently after making careful enquiries. They had allowed themselves to be deceived by entering into agreements when there was no space available in the Complex. It is not claimed by them that they had taken legal advice considering all aspects before entering into contracts with the builder. Their possession which they state they had in 1990 was absolutely unauthorised. Their entry into the complex was not at all in accordance with the principles of law. Their possession of the Flats in 1990 was not juridical and, therefore, they cannot now project their possession to challenge the report of the Committee. It is a basic principle of law that a person who has committed an illegality cannot approach a Court of law for relief. The Supreme Court has laid down in Natwar Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. Another v. Union of India and Others, J. T. 1995 2 S. C. 31, that no person has a licence to act unfairly and yet call upon others to act fairly. The argument of Mr. Aman Lekhi after considerable research and industry does not focus the real core of the issue and the arguments have been advanced with a view to giving legality to the otherwise unauthorised action. The argument by the learned Counsel cannot at all be accepted.


(57) THE objectors had filed, as I had mentioned earlier. Suit No. 1947/96 claiming the relief of specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Shashi Bala Khare W/o late B. D. Khare is the first plaintiff. Master Varun Khare, Ms Neena Khare, Ms Uma Khare and Ms Shikha Khare are plaintiffs 2 to 5. Reference is made to the details already mentioned by me above and on that basis the relief of specific performance is claimed. Smt. Shashi Bala Khare has filed an affidavit agreeing to act as next friend of the second plaintiff Master Varun Khare.


(58) SMT. Shashi Bala Khare was examined as Public Witness. I on 18. 9. 1996. She has referred to the details about allotment and the payments made. According to her the Flats are contiguous to each other and the total area in the portion of the plaintiffs is 2035 sq. ft. She also stated that their names appear at serial No. 25 in Annexure which refers to the waiting list. According to her, full payment had been made. The Committee had wrongly recorded that the payment has been made to the extent of 90%. The defendant Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. was set ex parte.


(59) REGARDING the claim for allotment of the Flats, the plaintiffs cannot be granted the relief because they had applied for allotment in 1988 and the allotment was made in 1989-90. The plaintiffs had paid Rs. 22,14,000. 00 to the builder on the assurance by the builder that Flats were available. However, as the group had paid money to the builder it is to be reimbursed. The plaintiffs shall be paid the sum of Rs. 22,14,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(60) MR. Vijender Singh has filed Suit No. 324/90 claiming the following reliefs:


" (i) A mandatory injunction requiring the defendants 1,3 and 4 to demarcate at site the areas allocable to the plaintiffs in the building at No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi; (ii) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 3 and 4, their servants and agents from in any manner : (a) using, handing over, delivering, transferring, assigning, hypothecating or charging or otherwise parting with possession to any Flat buyer or other persons of any part of the building at 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi until the said defendants have handed over to the plaintiffs in full the area allocable to them in the said building and have paid in full the liquidated damages and any other arrears payable to the plaintiffs under the agreement dated November 3,1986; (b) entering into any agreement relative to the place allocable to the plaintiffs in the building at No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi or from in any manner selling, mortgaging, charging, encumbering or parting possession therewith; (iii) a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally for the sum of Rs. 86,80,000. 00 (Rupees Eighty six lakhs and eighty thousand only) from the date of the suit upto the date of decree; (iv) interest on the decreed amount @ 18% (eighteen per cent) per annum from the date of judgment to the date of payment in full; and (v) cost of the suit. "

He examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 10. 7. 1996. He has spoken to the agreements with him and the builder and also his entitlement to 7?% of the built up area. As I had already mentioned, the agreements are true and valid and Mr. Vijender Singh is entitled to 7?/o of the built up area representing his 1 /6th undivided share in the property. Mr. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyers Association submitted that Mr. Vijender Singh had brought about the documents in collusion with Mr. Tejwant Singh and Mr. Vijender Singh is doing business along with Mr. Harprit Singh.


(61) I am not able to agree with Mr. Jaswant Singh. The owners are entitled to their shares as per the terms of the agreement. The Association cannot seek to defeat the rights of the owners. Public Witness. I has also spoken to Ex. P. 16 collaboration dated 6. 12. 1979. A number of documents have been marked through Public Witness. 1.


(62) MR. Koura, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Vijender Singh submitted that the area representing 7. 1 /2% of the built up area claimed by Mr. Vijender Singh was demarcated by this Court by order dated 4. 9. 1990. The order reads as follows: IAS. 925 and 927/90 In these two applications for seeking appointment of a Receiver and for appointment of a local Commissioner, the plaintiff and defendants 1,3 and 4 have agreed to the passing of the following interim order : The parties Counsel agree that Mr. M. S. Vinayak, Advocate, 334, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, be appointed Local Commissioner to make the demarcation at 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, of the plaintiff's 7. 1/2% (seven and a half per cent) of the built-up area of the building constructed on the plot and of the open space, terrace, advertisement spaces and parking space at 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The floorwise demarcation in the building shall be made by the Local Commissioner in accordance with the Schedule and Notes to the Schedule given in para 4 and the figures given in paras 6 (a) and 6 (b) of the plaint. The area will be physically demarcated on each floor at site for which purpose the local Commissioner may engage the services of an Architect, whose charges for which shall be equally shared between the plaintiffs and defendants 1,3 and 4. Demarcation shall be made by indelible paint. The Local Commissioner shall ascertain that the areas demarcated for the plaintiffs are completely vacant of any substation and/or other installations. 7?% of the open spaces and parking spaces to be allotted to the plaintiffs shall be specifically demarcated at site by indelible paint. All other materials required for demarcation should be provided by the plaintiffs. Demarcation will commence at 11 a. m. on Saturday, September 15, 1990 and shall continue thereafter as convenient to the parties. If any party fails to present himself for the demarcation the local Commissioner may proceed in his absence. The local Commissioner shall submit his report by September 24, 1990, together with one set of drawings showing the demarcation. Copies of the report shall be given to the parties. The local Commissioner's fee is fixed in the first instance at Rs. 2,500. 00 to be equally shared between the plaintiffs and defendants 1, 3 and 4. I order accordingly. These applications be listed for further proceedings on October 9, 1990 in 'short Matters'. " By order dated 29. 7. 1991 this Court directed handing over possession of the area to Mr. Vijender Singh. As per the order passed by this Court Mr. Vijender Singh and the members of his family are entitled to allotments in the following manner :


Ground Floor Flat No. G-4 1060 sq. ft First Floor Flat No. 104 1048 sq. ft Fourth Floor Flat No. 402 4597 sq. ft Twelfth Floor Flat Nos. 1205-1207 and 1212 1920 sq. ft Upper Basement Flat No. UB-1 778 sq. ft

In the Ground Floor Mr. Vijendra Singh is allotted 1060 sq. ft. He cannot claim a particular Flat on the strength of the order passed by this Court. The whole Complex is to be redone and without there being a completion certificate by N. D. M. C. no allottee can claim any particular Flat in any floor in the Complex. Therefore, direction is issued to the allottees to deposit money in the Court for making the Complex fit for occupation and thereafter appropriate directions will be issued relating to the exact Flat to be occupied by a particular allottee. Complete arrangements has to be made in this behalf. The entitlement of Vijendra Singh is one thing but the claim for a particular Flat is entirely a different matter.


(63) UPPER Ground Floor Next I have to consider the claims of persons with reference to what is called Upper Ground Floor. It has to be noticed that as per the sanctioned plans there is no Upper Ground Floor and, therefore, there can be no allotment of space in an Upper Ground Floor which does not exist. The question that was posed before the Committee was as to how to accommodate those agreement vendees who entered into agreements. The Committee had considered the claims of 11 agreement vendees. The Committee had appreciated the difficulty that they are not having Upper Ground Floor in the Complex but allotted space in other floors on the basis of the priority in the dates of agreements. But while making the allotment the Committee what is called practice in the trade of 30% deduction for common areas had not allotted only lesser space that what the parties had bargained for. At the risk of repetition J am of the view that this approach of the Committee of allotting after deducting 30% of common area is not at all correct. I have got to first see whether the space mentioned in the agreement as covered area what is understood in the field is available or not. In this Complex the common areas are left without any allotment. As could be seen from the plans shown in the report it is only the actual space available for allotment, that is shown in the plans. Therefore, covered area has to be allotted to the allottees on the basis of priority. With reference to particular floor only a few could be allotted, the rest in the order of priority ha veto be rejected. The allotment of space in other floors would affect the agreement vendees with reference to those floors. The Committee had not gone by the priority chronologically arranged. I am not able to appreciate the method followed by the Committee. The allotment can be considered with reference to floor men Honed in the allotment letters. Out of 11 claims with reference to Upper Ground Floor, the space is exhausted by allotting to one, the rest cannot claim any allotment. The approach by the Committee could be adopted only if the Us was between the builder and the allottees. It is in this view, I propose to consider the case of claimants to the space in Upper Ground Floor.


(64) THE Committee had considered the case of Williamjacksand Co. (India) Ltd. and had allotted 4822 sq. ft. and out of this thecommittee had noted the physical area allotted would be 3375 sq. ft. The Flats mentioned in the report are 1101 to 1105 in the 11th floor. The agreement is dated 29. 6. 1982. The agreement is for 10,000 sq. ft. in the Upper Ground Floor. If William Jacks and: Co. (India) Ltd. as per the priority is entitled to the allotment of space, the claims of others cannot be considered William Jacks and Co. (India) Ltd. had filed objections to the report. On 2. 4. 1987 had filed Suit No. 728/87 claiming the relief of specific performance of 10,000 sq. ft. in the entire Ground Floor. According to the plaintiff, the Upper Ground Floor mentioned in the agreement as on ground is only the Ground Floor. In the plaint the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. , first defendant, on 29. 6. 1982 for the purchase of 10,000 sq. ft. in the Upper Ground Floor @ Rs. 500. 00 per sq. ft. A sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 was paid by way of earnest money as part of the sale consideration. The first defendant had also taken permission from the NDMC for the construction of the multi-storey building on the plot as evidenced by letter despatch No. 6a/493 dated 29. 5. 1982. The first defendant represented that the construction of the Complex would be completed within 3? years from that date. On 28. 10. 1982 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by way of Pay Order drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. at New Delhi. The plaintiff had further stated that the amounts were paid in the following manner :


1. Rs. I lac by cheque No. V-559172 dated 18. 12. 1982 drawn on the Bank ofrajasthan Ltd. , New Delhi. 2. Rs. l0 lacs by payorder dated l. l. l983 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , New Delhi. 3. Rs. l,50,000. 00 by cheque No. V-574177 dated 22. 7. 1983 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , New Delhi. 4. Rs. 75,000. 00 by cheque No. V-574195 dated 10. 8. 1983 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , New Delhi. 5. Rs: I lac by cheque No. CD/ad 601796 dated 5. 1. 1984 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , New Delhi. 6. Rs. 50,000. 00 by cheque No. 608604 dated 19. 4. 1984 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , New Delhi. 7. Rs. 50,000. 00 by cheque No. CD/ad 5855512 dated 12. 11. 1984 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , New Delhi. 8. Rs. I lac by cheque No. 573728 dated 25. 1. 1985 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , New Delhi. "

According to the plaintiff by 25. 1. 1985 the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 26,75,000/ -. There were supplemental agreements between the parties and the last supplemental agreement was on 11. 12. 1985. The balance of sale consideration payable by the plaintiff was Rs. 28,25,000. 00. By letter dated 12. 9. 1986 the first defendant Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. sought the consent of the plaintiff for the assignment and the transfer of the project to the second defendant Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and the plaintiff did not agree to it. By letter dated 16. 12. 1986 the first defendant wrote to the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff had only paid a sum of Rs. 14,75,000. 00. The plaintiff on the receipt of the letter contacted the third respondent Mr. Tejwant Singh. The plaintiff was assured that the first defendant and the second defendant would ignore the letter and the plaintiff would be allotted space as per the agreement. The third defendant Mr. Tejwant Singh in or about28. 1. 1987 requested for payment of Rs. 5 lakhs and the plaintiff paid the same and the total amount paid was Rs. 310,75,000. 00. The plaintiff had also challenged the right of the first defendant Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to assign the project to second defendant Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff states that it has always been ready and willing to perform its part of the contract and the defendants were trying to delay for reasons best known to them.


(65) MR. K. K. Jajodia, a director of the plaintiff Company was examined as P. W. 1. He has spoken to the agreement and also the payments made. He proved Ex. P. I the agreement dated 29. 6. 1982. He would state that Mr. Tejinder Singh showed the plaintiff Upper Ground Floor. He has proved the receipts Ex. P. 10 to P. 19 showing the payments made. He has also proved the supplemental agreements executed on 7. 7. 1983 (Ex. P. 2), 28. 12. 1983 (Ex. P. 3), 22. 6. 1984 (Ex. P. 4), 27. 12. 1984 (Ex. P. 5), 10. 7. 1985 (Ex. P. 6) and 11. 12. 1985 (Ex. P. 7). About the transfer of the project, the correspondence is marked as Ex. P. 23 dated 25. 3. 1987 and the letter dated 26. 3. 1987 is Ex. P. 24. Mr. Jajodia stated in his evidence that the plaintiff is ready to deposit in Court any amount that may be directed to pay. The witness had stated that the plaintiff is entitled to allotment as per the agreement in the Ground Floor.


(66) MR. V. N. Koura, learned Senior Counsel cross examined the witness on behalf of Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. The first defendant put the question whether Public Witness. 1 was aware of the fact whether. Upper Ground Floor had been sanctioned, lt was also suggested to Public Witness. I on behalf of the first defendant that he had not seen the sanctioned plan, the witness replied by stating that the plaintiff was shown Ex. P. 22 a plan and he did not know whether it was a sanctioned one or not. It is amazing that the first defendant should have chosen to put such a question to the witness. It was the duty of the first defendant and the second defendant to get plans sanctioned before entering into agreement for sale. Having committed fraud on the allottees, the first defendant has the audacity to cross examine the witness and put questions trying to project as if that the first defendant had acted in accordance with law.


(67) THE plaintiff examined Mr. E. F. N. Ribeiro, who is an Architect by profession and who was Commissioner (Planning), DDA from 1979 to 1983, a Member DDA and Chief Planner, Town and country Planning Organisation, Ministry of Urban Development from 1983 to 1988. According to him, he was also the President of Institute of Town Planners of India in 1984-85 and he was Vice President of the International Society of City and Regional Planners from 1986 to 1993. He was also an Executive Director of INTACH (India National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) in 1992-93. The attempt of the plaintiff was that Upper Ground Floor stated in the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant is really now the First Floor in the Complex. In the plaint, as could be seen from the relief portion, the plaintiff claimed 10,000 sq. ft. on the Ground Floor. Through P. W. 2 the attempt has been that the plaintiff should be allotted the first floor. The following question and answer would establish this fact:


"q. In Skipper Towers/which floor could be identified as the Upper Ground Floor? Ans. The floor above the ground floor (now numbered as first floor) is the only floor which can be identified as a upper ground floor. "

Mr. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyers Association cross-examined the witness. The object was that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with reference to a portion for which no permission had been granted by the NDMC. The confusion was created by the first and the second defendants, as builders it was their duty to follow the rules prescribed by the NDMC for the construction of multistorey buildings. The builders had absolutely no right to enter into any agreement without sanction of plans. Here is a case where there had been agreements on 29. 6. 1982 when the consideration of the plans submitted by the builder was in an embryonic stage. It was at that stage the first defendant had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was concerned only with covered area of 10,000 sq. ft. and was prepared to pay the consideration agreed for the area @ Rs. 550. 00 per sq. ft. The defendants had also received substantial amounts from the plaintiff towards the sale consideration. The defendants not only did not care to complete the construction but had cheed all the allottees leaving them to approach this Court for reliefs and more than a decade had passed and nothing has been done by the builder and the defendants had not even cared to appear and assist the Court in coming to a workable solution to the problems created by them.


(68) THE plaintiff had agreed to purchase 10,000 sq. ft. covered area. The Committee, as I have noticed above, had allotted only 3375 sq. ft. in the 11th floor. The Committee had proceed on the basis, as I have mentioned above, of payment made by the plaintiff and working out the area on that basis. I am, afraid, that the whole approach by the Committee is not correct. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay. The observation of the Committee that the plaintiff had paid only a portion of the consideration and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to proportionate allotment is not a correct approach to the matter. That approach could be made only if the claimants were making the claims against the builder when the builder says that the building was ready and made demand on the claimants and he would allot the space to the persons who paid the entire amount due as per the demand made by the builder. It could be seen that nothing could beattributed to the plaintiff for the non-payment of the balance of sale consideration, it is really a blessing for all the allottees that the entire Consideration had not been paid to the builder. The situation would be unfortunate if the defendants had received the entire amount from all the allottees and had left the place. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the factor of nonpayment has to be considered in favour of the allottees. That is why this Court is in a position to apprise the allottees that if they make payments, as required by the Court, the Complex could be made functional and such of those allottees who could get the allotment could do business in the Complex. In my view, the plaintiff is entitled to the allotment and the plaintiff is allotted 7460 sq. ft. in the 11th Floor.


(69) IN the 11th floor the Committee had made allotment in the following manner: S. No. S. No. in Name of the allotment Agreement allotment



annexure I Allottee claimed dated made.





1 48 Rahulbhatnagar 500 sq. ft. 3. 2. 79 350f. A.



2nd Floor Flat 1106a





2. 46 R. Mohan HUF 300sq. ft. 23. 9. 86 173f. A.



1st Floor Flatll07a





3. 76 N. S. Ahluwalia 502 sq. ft. 16. 1. 86 351 F. A>



4th Floor Flat 1107b





4. 25 Kamlesh Vasudeva 435 sq. ft. 3. 10. 85 288 F. A.



U. G. Floor Flat 1107c





5. 79 Pramod Khanna 300 sq. ft. 21. 11. 86 197 F. A.



4th Floor Flat 1108a





6. 108 Hindustan Oil 500 sq. ft. 13. 6. 81 350 F. A.



6th Floor Flat 1108b


7. 170 Dhruv Gupta 300 sq. ft. 1. 10. 86 178 F. A.



10th Floor Flat 1108c





8. 51 Pushpa Kapur 225 sq. ft. 5. 8. 86 155 F. A.



2nd Floor Flat 1109a





9. 112 Anju Ghai 500 sq. ft. 8. 3. 85 303 F. A.



6th Floor Flat 1109b





10. 77 Arun Kapoor 300 sq. ft. 25. 7. 84 210 F. A.



4th Floor Flat 1109c





11. 50 Sarabjit Singh 350 sq. ft. 5. 3. 86 245 F. A.



2nd Floor Flat 1110a



(As per



allotment in



Annexure I



1110b).


12. 113 Sarojini 760 sq. ft. 30. 7. 85 532 F. A.



6th Floor Flat 1110b





13. 49 Yogender Raj 500 sq. ft. 5. 5. 83 350 F. A.



2nd Floor Flat 1111





14. Left vacant.





(70) IF allotment is made to William Jacks and Co. (India) Ltd. ignoring the agreement where it is mentioned as Upper Ground Floor and if it is allotted in the 11th Floor there is none who had entered agreement with reference to 11th Floor who could claim priority over William Jacks and Co. (India) Ltd. Other allottees had entered into agreements with reference to other floors. Therefore, when the Committee had decided to allot space to William Jacks and Co. (India) Ltd. and the Company is entitled to the allotment as per the view I have taken in the covered area, then no allotment could be made to other persons. The area available in the 11 th Floor, as per the NDMC is 7460. 342 sq. ft. Other claims made to the 11th Floor are rejected.


(71) MR. Ravindra Kumar had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 23. 4. 1984. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. 4,30,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,83,800. 00. The area allotted is 550 sq. ft. and physical area 385 sq. ft. Flat No. 505a on the 5th floor. Ravindra Kumar HUF and Mr. Ravindra Kumar Bohra, Karta of plaintiff No. 1, had filed Suit No. 913/91 for aninjunction restraining Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. frorm canceling the allot mentand from reducing the area of the Flat. It is stated in the plaint that the agreement was on 23. 4. 1984 between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. , a sister concern of the defendant and Mr. G. S. Ahluwalia with reference-to 500 sq. ft. in Upper Ground Floor. By 19. 4. 1988 the said Mr. Ahiuwalia had paid a sum of Rs. 2,34,500. 00 to the defendant. By letter dated 7. 12. 1989 the defendant had informed the said Mr. Ahiuwalia that as per the final d rawing Flat No. UG-5 on the Upper Floor was allotted to him. By letters dated 1. 2. 1989 and 15. 12. 1989 the said Mr. Ahiuwalia had assigned the rights to plaintiffs and, therefore, they had become entitled to the allotment. Mr. Ravindra Kumar examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 14. 8. 1996. Ex. P. I is agreement dated 23. 4. 1984. It refers to 500 sq. ft. in Upper Ground Floor and no Flat number is mentioned. The rate mentioned is Rs. 400. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 2 is letter dated 28. 12. 1989 from Mr. G. S. Ahiuwalia to the defendant informing about the assignment. Ex. P. 3 is receipt dated 28. 12. 1989 wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs. 4,30,000. 00 had been paid by the plaintiffs to Mr. Ahiuwalia. He has not been examined to prove the transaction in the year 1989. Ex. P. 4 is the statement of account dated 14. 1. 1991 given by the defendant to the plaintiffs wherein it is stated that UG-5 is booked, total amount called Rs. 4,60,350. 00 and total amount received Rs. 2,34,500. 00 , balance payable is Rs. 2,25,850. 00. Mr. Ravindra Kumar was not willing to pay any amount and was only willing to pay additional Court fee payable. In any event, there can be no allotment in favour of the plaintiffs. They have asked only the relief of injunction which cannot be granted. However, liberty is granted to the plaintiffs to take appropriate proceedings against the defendant for the recovery of money paid to the defendant and against Mr. G. S. Ahiuwalia. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed.


(72) MR. Anugrag Aggarwal had claimed 500 sq. ft. in the Upper Ground Floor on the basis of agreement dated 12. 3. 1985. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. 3,28,200. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 3,53,000. 00. The Committee noted that he had paid 92. 97% and allotted 465 sq. ft, 326 sq. ft. physical area in Flat No. 505-B in the 5th floor. He had filed Suit No. 1271/92 claimingthe relief of specific performance for purchase of Flat No. UGF-102. Mr. Arvind Aggarwal, the power of attorney of plaintiff, who is the brother of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. 1. He has spoken to the agreement and also the allotment made by the Committee. P. W. I accepts the Report of the Committee and states that it is acceptable to the plaintiff. Ex. P. I is the power of attorney in favour of Public Witness. I. Ex. P. 2 is agreement dated 12. 3. 1985. What is mentioned is acovered area of 500sq. ft. onmezzaninefloor denoted by No. 102. The rate is mentioned as Rs. 600. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 3 is receipt dated 12. 3. 1985 for payment of Rs. I lakh by cheque for Flat M-102 in mezzanine floor. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 21. 5. 1986 for Rs. 20,000. 00 by cheque for mezzanine floor. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 28. 10. 1986 for payment of Rs. 81. 000. 00 by cheque for Upper Ground Floor for the building constructed at 98, Nehru Place and this receipt is issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, Ex. P. 5 has nothing to do with 22 Barakhamba Road. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 12. 11. 1986 for payment of Rs. 25,000. 00 by cheque for Upper Ground Floor in 98 Nehru Place, New Delhi. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 2. 1. 1987forrs. 35,000. 00 by wayofchequedatedl2. 11. 1986forupperground Floor for 300 sq. ft. in 22 Barakhamba Road. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 3. 7. 1990 for payment of Rs. 40,000. 00 by cheque dated 3. 7. 1990 for Upper Ground Floor 500 sq. ft. in 22 Barakhamba Road. This is after this Court had taken cognizance of the matter. Ex. P. 9 receipt dated 6. 3. 1991 for payment of Rs. 18,200. 00 by cheque dated 6. 3. 1991 for the Flat in Upper Ground Floor 500 sq. ft.


(73) HAVING regard to the nature of the documents, I am not at all satisfied that the plaintiff has made out any case for allotment. The agreement is in later point of time to William Jacks and Co. (India) Ltd. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for allotment is rejected. However, the plaintiff is entitled to the amount. The plaintiff shall be paid a sum of Rs. 3,82,000. 00 from out of the common pool. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra had claimed 150 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 26. 12. 1986 in the Upper Ground Floor. The Committee had noted that a sum of Rs. 1,14,000. 00 had been paid as against the cost of Rs. l,34,400. 00 and thus 84. 80% was paid. The Committee had allotted 127 sq. ft. (89 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 305- He along with his wife Smt. Saria Malhotra had filed Suit No. 4110/92 claiming the relief of specific performance. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs entered into an agreement forthe purchase of 150 sq. ft. in the Upper Ground Floor. It was on 26. 12. 1986. In June 1988 the defendant demanded the entire payment. According to the plaintiffs till the date of suit they had paid a sum of Rs. l,51,000. 00. The plaintiffs had paid aircondition charges on 9. 1. 1990 amounting to Rs. 34,500. 00. The defendant on 8. 1. 1991 demanded, escalation charges. The plaintiffs demanded possession that was not done. In paragraph 21 of the plaint it is stated that's against thepriceoftheflatfixedatrs. l,20,000. 00 the plaintiffs had paid Rs. l,51,000. 00. Smt. Saria Malhotra was examined as Public Witness. I and she has spoken to the agreement Ex. P. 1 and also receipts Ex. P. 2 to P. 8 and statement of account Ex. P. 9. She would state that the space allotted to her on the 3rd Floor is acceptable to her. Ex. P. 1 the agreementis dated 26. 12. 1986/5. 5. 1988. Therefore, therelevantdateis5. 5. 1988. In view of this, the plaintiffs cannot claim any entitlement of space. The plaintiffs now state that they had paid Rs. l,51,000. 00 to the defendant. That amount the plaintiffs would be entitled to. The plaintiff shall be paid the sum of Rs. l,51;000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(74) MR. A. R. Wig has claimed 650 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 26. 12. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,34,100. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,83,400. 00 and thus 82. 60% had been paid. The Committee allotted 530 sq. ft. (376 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 509-B. He had filed objections to the Report of the Committee I. A. 1466/95 and 1470/95. He had also filed Suit No. 1957/96. In the plaint it is stated that on 4. 3. 1982 the plaintiff agreed to purchase a space of 650 sq. ft. on the Upper Ground Floor and the rate was Rs. 300. 00 per sq. ft. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 on4. 3. 1982. In May 1986 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 2,04,100. 00 as against the agreed price of Rs. 1,95,000. 00. On 25. 5. 1980 the plaintiff requested Mr. Tejwant Singh to increase the area to 1000 sq. ft. instead of 650 sq. ft. Mr. Tejwant Singh agreed. The plaintiff paid extra amount of Rs. l,90,130. 00. The plaintiff paid Rs. 3,94,230. 00. On 12. 4. 1991 the plaintiff paid the final payment of Rs. 41,220. 00. The plaintiff was given possession on the Upper Ground Floor and he applied for telephone connection and in September 1994 the plaintiff installed the telephone and he spent more than Rs. 2 lakhs for furnishing. The plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the Flat. The plaintiff filed claims before the Committee and he filed objections later on. The defendant is under legal obligation to execute the sale deed in respect of office 204 Upper Ground Floor to the extent of 1000 sq. ft. Thus the plaintiff claims specific performance in respect of office space No. 204 Upper Ground Floor. Mr. A. R. Wig examined himself as Public Witness. 1. He spoke to the agreement dated 4. 3. 1982 which is marked as Ex. P. I. According to him, on 25. 5. 1986 Mr. Tejwant Singh agreed to sell additional space of 350 sq. ft. He had marked receipts Ex. P. 2 to P. 15 showing the payments. According to the witness, the original receipts have been lost. The statement of account given by the defendant is marked as Ex. P. 16. According to the plaintiff, the receipt dated 9. 2. 1991 showing the payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 had also been lost by him. He produced certificate from the State Bank of India dated 25. 9. 1984 stating that Rs. 50,000. 00 had been debited from the account of the plaintiff. That is marked as Ex. P. 17. Mr. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyers Association cross examined Mr. Wig. To a question whether the agreement dated 4. 3. 1982 would refer to a particular Flat, the answer was "i do not remember the date when I signed the agreement" It was put to him that he filed I As. 4608/90 and 4609/90 along with Mr. K. S. Jolly, Deputy General Manager, PTI, Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Mr. D. B. Khareand Mr. Harsarup on 7. 6. 1990. His answer was that "i might have signed some documents but I do not remember what exactly they are. " When a question was put to him why did not get any order from this Hon'ble Court for taking possession and whether you were aware of stay of handing over or taking over possession. The answer was " was not aware of it. " He would state that he was not aware of any contempt Petition No. 153/92 pending against him. He would state that he filed objections to the report of the Committee. When a question was put to him that he did not file any receipt before the Committee, the answer was "the Committee did not give me time so I could not file the receipts. " In the suit he has claimed for the following reliefs:


"it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree of specific performance of the sale of 1000 sq. ft. office space in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, with costs of suit, thereby directing the defendant, its officials, etc. to execute the sale deed in respect of office space No. 204, Upper Ground Floor of Skipper Bhawan, 22 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, having about 1000 sq. fts. forthwith as shown red in plan attached in favour of plaintiff and to present the said sale deed for registration before the concerned Sub Registrar, New Delhi, as per law and in case if the defendant fails to execute the sale deed then this Court be pleased to direct the Registrar of this Hon'ble Court to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff on behalf of defendant as per law, along with costs of the suit. In case the sale deed is for an area less than 1000 sq. ft. in that event plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 20,00,000. 00 (Rupees twenty lakhs only). "

Ex. P. I is the allotment letter dated 4. 3. 1982 wherein reference is made to First Floor 650 sq. ft. Rate was Rs. 300. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 2 is a receipt dated 13. 3. 1984 for payment of Rs. 20,000. 00 by cheque for space area in the First Floor. Ex. . P. 3 is a receipt dated 27. 9. 1984 for payment of Rs. 20,000. 00 by way of cheque. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 14. 12. 1984 for Rs. 50,000. 00 by cheque for the First Floor for 650 sq. ft. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 9. 3. 1985 for Rs. 30,000. 00 by way of cheque for Flat No. 6 Upper Ground Floor. Ex. P. 6 is receipt for Rs. 10,000. 00 by cheque dated 4. 5. 1985 for Flat No. UB-6 on Upper Basement 650 sq. ft. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 25. 5. 1985 for Rs. 9,600. 00 by cheque for Flat No. 6, Upper Ground Floor 650 sq. ft. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 19. 7. 1985 for Rs. 9,750. 00 by cheque for Upper Ground Floor. Flat number is not mentioned. Ex. P. 9 is receipt dated 11. 12. 1985 for payment of Rs. 9,750. 00 by cheque for Upper Ground Floor 650 sq. ft. Flat number is not mentioned. Ex. P. 10 is receipt dated 27. 11. 1986 for Rs. 30,000. 00 by cheque towards marble etc. for Flat No. I, Upper Ground Floor. This receipt is issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 11s receipt dated 23. 1. 1987 for payment of Rs. 25,000. 00 by cheque for Flat in Upper Ground Floor. Ex. P. 12 is receipt dated 5. 8. 1987 for payment of Rs. 30,000. 00 by cheque for Flat No. 6, Upper Ground Floor 650 sq. ft. Ex. P. 13 is receipt dated 8. 7. 1988 for payment of Rs. 4,160. 00 by cheque for Upper Ground Floor 650 sq. ft. No Flat number is mentioned. Ex. P. 14 is receipt dated 8. 7. 1988 for Rs. 9,750. 00 by cheque for Upper Ground Floor 650 sq. ft. No Flat number is mentioned. Ex. P. 15 is the receipt dated 12. 4. 1991 for payment of Rs. 41,220. 00 by cheque for Upper Ground Floor 650 sq. ft. Flat number is not mentioned. Ex. P. 17 is a letter dated 15. 9. 1994 issued by the State Bank of India, Kasturba Gandhi Marg Branch which states as follows :"your Savings Bank A/c No. 1797: With reference to your letter dated 9. 9. 94, we advise that cheque No. 014006 dated 22. 1. 93 has been issued by you in favour of self and obtained in cash. Further cheque No. 268739 dated 1. 2. 91 has been drawn in favour of Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. which has been paid on 9. 2. 91 for Rs. 50. 000. 00. A sum of Rs. 20. 00 has been recovered as a service charges by debit to your account. "

Ex. P. 16 is the statement of account issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(75) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances when Ex. P. I refers to First Floor, the plaintiff cannot claim on the basis of allotment on the Upper Ground Floor. The whole case is pegged on the agreement with reference to Upper Ground Floor. I am of the view that the plaintiff has not established his claim for any allotment. Therefore, the claim for allotment to the plaintiff is rejected. The suit stands dismissed. I. As. 1466/95 and 1470/95 are dismissed. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for allotment. The plaintiff shall be paid the sum of Rs. 3,94,230. 00 from out of the common pool.


(76) SUIT No. 3686/92 is filed by M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to UGF-4, the same as claimed by Mr. D. K. Gupta. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff applied for purchase of Flatad measuring 500 sq. ft. on Upper Ground Floor and the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. agreed to sell Flat No. UGF-4 @ Rs. l,600. 00 per sq. ft. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 6,40,000. 00. The letter of allotment was issued on 10. 4. 1989. The balance of Rs. l,60,000. 00 outof the total consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs was to be paid at the time of handing over possession. On 21. 1. 1992 the defendant when contacted by the plaintiff refused to comply with the demand. Therefore, this suit, Mr. R. Varadhan, General Power of Attorney holder of the Company was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 24. 9. 1996. Ex. P. I is the power of attorney. Accordingtohim,theagreementwason 10. 4. 1989and the same is marked as Ex. P. 2. The payments were made as evidenced by Exs. P. 3 and P. 4 for Rs. 6,40,000. 00 total. The agreement is in the year 1989 when there was an order of injunction against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff cannot project any agreement for claiming any allotment. Therefore, the claim for allotment is rejected. However, the plaintiff shall be reimbursed to the extent of Rs. 6,40,000. 00 , paid by it to the defendant. The sum of Rs. 6,40,000. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(77) THE same M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. had filed Suit No. 3687/92 claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to UGF-3. In the plaint it is stated that a sum of Rs. 6,40,000. 00 was paid. The area was 500 sq. ft. @ Rs. 16. 00. 00 per sq. ft. The agreement was dated 10. 4. 1989. Mr. R. Varadhan, General Power of Attorney holder of the Company, was examined as Public Witness. I. Ex. P. I is the power of attorney. He proved Ex. P. 2 the agreement. He spoke to. Ex. P. 3 the receipt for Rs. 6,40,000. 00 andhehasalsoproved Ex. P. 4statementof account. The agreement being on 10. 4. 1989 the claim for allotment cannot be considered. The claim for allotment is rejected. However, the plaintiff would be entitled to money. The sum of Rs. 6,40,000. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(78) ONE aspect to be noticed is that Mr. Pramod Khanna who applied for Flat in the 4th Floor is allotted 281 sq. ft. , 197 sq. ft. physical area in Flat No. 508-A on the 5th Floor and also Flat No. 1108a on the 11th Floor. I have rejected his case but it is not known as to how the Committee came to make double allotment to this person.



(79) MRS. Rajinderkaur has filed Suit No. 2253/96 claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to 500 sq. ft. in Upper Ground Floor. According to her, she had the letter of allotment on 17. 1. 1984. Mr. Manmohan Singh son of Smt. Rajinder Kaur was examined as Public Witness. I on 19. 9. 1996. According to him, the letter of allotment was on 17. 1. 1984 and the same is marked as Ex. P. I. The total consideration was Rs. l,50,000. 00. His mother had paid Rs. 2 lakhs as evidenced by Ex. P. 2 to P. 8. According to him, his mother's name is found at serial No. 131 in Annexure E-l to Final Report. Whatever the case may be, there is no Upper Ground Floor in the Complex. She has approached to this Court only on 16. 9. 1996. Therefore, she cannot claim any allotment. In the Committee's Report, her name appears at serial No. 131 in E-l. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 65,000. 00 but the receipts filed by her show the payment of Rs. 2 lakhs. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in granting of allotment. However, she is entitled to the sum of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 from out of the common pool. with reference to persons whose cases have rejected, it is needless to say that I have rejected their cases not only on the ground that they have not made out a case for allotment but also on the ground that there was no space is available in the Upper Ground Floor assuming there was an Upper Ground Floor.


(80) FIRST Floor I shall now take up the allotments in the First floor.


(81) M/s. FATEH Printing Press, a partnership concern, had claimed 760 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 3. 3. 1981. The Committee had noted that it had paid a sum of Rs. 4,25,503. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 4,64,360. 00 thereby it had paid 91. 42%. The Committee had allotted 695 sq. ft. (487 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 110 in the First Floor. Fateh Printing Press had filed Suit No. 2964/91 claiming the relief of specific performance and also for injunction. The defendants are Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. first defendant. Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. 2nd defendant, William Jacks and Company (India) Ltd. 3rd defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that International Industries Annual obtained the rights to purchase Flat No. 110 measuring 760 sq. ft. from Mr. V. K. Gupta by agreement dated 5. 3. 1981. On 15. 10. 1981 the plaintiff purchased the Flat in question from International Industries Annual. On 8. 1. 1986 Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd handed over physical possession of Flat No. 110 measuring 760 sq. ft. to the plaintiff. On 12. 9. 1986 the plaintiff received a letter from the first defendant that it had assigned the project to the second defendant Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 4,25,503. 50 to defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff came to know that third defendant William Jacks and Co. (India) Ltd. was claiming on the First Floor and had filed Suit No. 728/87 and, therefore, third defendant is impleaded as a party. The third defendant William Jacks and Co. (India) Ltd. contested the suit and defendants 1 and 2 did not appear to contest. Mr. Manjit Singh was examined as Public Witness. I on behalf of the plaintiff partnership concern. Ex. P. I is marked which is the partnership deed and Ex. P. 2 is photo copy of the Certificate of Registration of the plaintiff's partnership. Ex. P. 3 is the agreement which the plaintiff entered into with the International Industries Annual. Ex. P. 4 dated 5. 3. 1981 is letter from Mr. V. K. Gupta. According to Public Witness. 1 the rate was Rs. 500. 00 per sq. ft. and the area booked was 760 sq. ft. Ex. P. 5 is the plan given by the first defendant showing the area allotted to the plaintiff. Exs. P. 6 to P. 36 are the receipts to show the payments. Ex. P. 37 is the letter of possession.


(82) I have perused the documents. Ex. P. 4 is the letter alleged to have been written by Mr. V. K. Gupta to the first defendant stating that he had booked Flat on 27. 12. 1977 and he was assigning his rights in favour of his nominee International Industries Annual. Ex. P. 3isdated 15. 10. 1981 from International Industries Annual to first defendant Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. stating that it had assigned the rights to Fateh Printing Press. The agreement dated 27. 12. 1977 has not been produced. The payment alleged to have been made by Mr. V. K. Gupta on 27. 12. 1977 to the tune of Rs. 38,000. 00 is not evidenced by any document and that is not proved. Receipts Ex. P. 7, P. 8, P. 10, P. 15, P. 16, P. 17, P. 19, P. 21, P. 22, P. 23, P. 25, P. 26, P. 27, P. 28, P. 29, P. 30, P. 31, P. 32, P. 33, P. 34 and P. 35 show that payments had not been made directly but there were some adjustments and by drawing of bills. Receipts Ex. P. 12, P. 13 and P. 14 show that the payment was made in cash. Ex. P. 36 is receipt dated 31. 8. 1990 on which date no payment could have been made because the plaintiff must have been well aware that there was an order of injunction by this Court operating against the defendants 1 and 2. Ex. P. 37 reads as under :


"sub: Flat No. 110 measuring 760 sq. ft. on First Floor at Skipper Bhavan, 22, Barakhamba Road. We have this 8th day of January 1986 handed over provisional physical possession of Flat No. 110 measuring 760 sq. ft. on First Floor at 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Till such time as the permanent electric connection is not given, we shall provide you with one light and one fan. "

This only shows that the plaintiff and defendants I and 2 were anxious to create evidence to show the possession. The first defendant had not obtained completion certificate from the N. D. M. C. and the building was under construction and under what circumstances the letter came to be issued is not explained by the plaintiff. Ex. P. 38 is letter dated 29. 8. 1988 from the Telephone Department to Mr. A. R. Wig, Chief Editor wherein it is stated that telephone of Mr. Manjit Singh of Fateh Weekly had been dealt with out of turn priority basis and a new number had been given. This only shows that the plaintiff somehow colluding with defendants 1 and 2 make it appear as if it had taken possession of the property and to conform it had brought about evidence to show that telephone also had been installed. It may also be noticed that the plaintiff is Fateh Printing Press and what is referred to in the letter is Fateh Weekly. Mr. Manjit Singh may be the person operating both. On 15. 5. 1990 Mr. Manjit Singh writes to Chief General Manager, Delhi Telephones that even though telephone was installed on 24. 8. 1988 the telephone was not functioning. This would also show that the installation of telephone was only to establish the fact of possession which was not at all authorised. There is also on record letter dated 16. 6. 1990 from the plaintiff to the Post Master, G. P. O. complaining that letters addressed to Fateh Printing Press are taken by the postman to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. in the Ground Floor and necessary instructions should be given to the postman. This again shows the anxiety on the part of the plaintiff. Ex. P. 5 is the plan filed by the plaintiff to show that along with a letter of possession the plan was given. It is not shown that it was the plan approved by the NDMC. This only showsa document created for this purpose.


(83) I am unable to accept the case of the plaintiff that it had entered into any agreement for the purchase of the Flat in the first floor. The Committee had not considered that the plaintiff came forward with the case of agreement dated 27. 12. 1977 and that agreement had not been filed to show the genuineness of the claim. The plaintiff has not established his case for allotment and I reject the claim of the plaintiff. So far as the payments made by the plaintiff by adjustment or otherwise, defendants 1 and 2 do not contest the same. Therefore, the plaintiff is en ti tied to a decree for recovery of the amount. Accordingly, there shall be a decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for allotment and directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4,25,503. 60 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.


(84) MITANI Enterprises had claimed 1000 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 1. 10. 1989. They have not filed any suit to prove its claim. The Committee had allotted 1000 sq. ft. (760 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 101 in the First Floor.


(85) IN view of the fact that it had not filed any suit and no one has appeared before the Court, the claim stands rejected.


(86) MS. Geeta Anand and Ms. Ranjan Anand had claimed 440 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 12. 4. 1982. The Committee had noted that they had paid Rs. 2,68,072. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,68,840. 00 , thereby they had paid 99. 71%. The Committee allotted 439 sq. ft. (307 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 111 A. They have filed Suit No. 1346/92 for declaration and injunction against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Raj Overseas Travels Pvt. Ltd. According to the plaintiffs, there was an agreement on 12. 4. 1982 for the purchase of a covered area of 440 sq. ft. @ Rs. 500. 00 per sq. ft. in the First Floor and that was Flat No. 111. According to the plaintiffs, this agreement was between Hemkunt Enterprises and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. On 7. 6. 1984 Hemkunt Enterprises wrote to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. staling that it had assigned the rights in favour of the plaintiffs. Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. issued a memo on the same date recognising the assignment. According to the plaintiffs, they had paid Rs. 2,68,576. 00. The plaintiffs filed claim before the Committee on 4. 12. 1991 for Flat No. III in the First Floor. While the proceedings were going on before the Committee, in or about the middle of January 1992, Mr. Sushil Salwan, Counsel for first defendant Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had represented to the Committee that the plaintiffs had agreed to purchase Flat No. 209a. First defendant gave a list to the Committee showing that Flat No. 209a have been allotted to the plaintiffs and Flat No. 111 have been allotted to Raj Overseas Travels. Therefore, the plaintiffs had to file this suit. Second defendant had filed written statement. Mr. D. V. Anand was examined as Public Witness. I on 14. 8. 1996. According to him, the Flat was booked on 13. 9. 1981. He marked Ex. P. I as initial agreement dated 12. 4. 1982 with Hernkunt Enterprises. The Flat was transferred to his name from Hemkunt Enterprises on 12. 6. 1984. Ex. P. 2 is the endorsement. Exs. P-3 to P. 11 are the receipt showing the payments. In the plaint it is stated that the agreement between Hernkunt Enterprises and the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. was on 12. 4. 1982. In the evidence Public Witness. I states that the agreement between Hernkunt Enterprises and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. was on 30. 9. 1981. Ex. P. 3 is receipt dated 7. 6. 1984 for payment of Rs. l,31,560. 00 by way of cheque. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 14. 12. 1984 for the payment of Rs. 11,000. 00 by way of cheque. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 22. 2. 1985 for the payment of Rs. ll,000. 00 by cheque. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 20. 5. 1985 for the payment of Rs. 11,000. 00 by cheque. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 3. 9. 1985 for the payment of Rs. 11,000. 00 by cheque. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 12. 12. 1986 for the payment of Rs. 11,000. 00 by cheque. Ex. P. 9 is receipt dated 27. 3. 1987 for the payment of Rs. 23,056. 00 by cheque. Ex. P. 10 is receipt dated 28. 5. 1987 for the payment of Rs. ll,000. 00 by cheque. Ex. P. 11 is receipt dated 7. 6. 1988 for the payment of Rs. 14,960. 00 by cheque.


(87) I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out their claim for allotment. The plaintiffs are allotted 440 sq. ft. in the First Floor.


(88) MS. Asha Gulati had claimed 600 sq. ft. by virtue of agreement dated 15. 11. 1982. She had not filed any suit nor she filed any objections. The Committee had allotted 227 sq. ft. (159 sq. ft. physical area). In view of the fact that she has not appeared before the Court, no allotment could be made.


(89) M/s. Niryat Pvt. Ltd. had claimed 550 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 3. 1. 1984. The Committee had noted that it had paid a sum of Rs. 2,89,750. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 3,36,050. 00 and thus made payment of 86. 22%. The Committee had allotted 474 sq. ft. (332 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 103a. M/s. Niryat Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 3075/90. According to the plaint, on 3. 1. 1984 there was an agreement. As per the terms of agreement the plaintiff had paid 95% of the payment. On 20. 4. 1985 the original agreement holder Mrs. Savitri Kohli assigned the rights in favour of the plaintiff. The rate agreed was Rs. 500. 00 per sq. ft. plus L and D. O. charges had to be paid @ Rs. 74. 00 per sq. ft. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,61,250. 00. The plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the letter dated 7. 9. 1990 canceling the agreement for Flat Nos-102 and 104 and for injunction restraining the defendant from allotting the Flats to any third party. Mr. Sudhir Sareen, Managing Director of the plaintiff Co. was examined as Public Witness. I on 6. 8. 1996. He speaks to the agreement dated 3. 1. 1984 for Flat No. 104 and Ex. P. 2 dated 20. 1. 1984 for Flat No. 102. Ex. P. 3 is letter evidencing the transfer of the rights in favour of the plaintiff. P. W. 1 states that the Company paid Rs. 4,07,700. 00 to Mrs. Kohli, the original agreement holder. He speaks toexs. P. 4 to P. 12 receipts. He would speak to Ex. P-13 and P. 14 letters written by the plaintiff to the defendant for possession. He would speak to Ex. P. 15 and P. 16 the letters canceling the allotment. He would state that on 13. 9. 1990 under Ex. P. 17 notice was issued to the defendant. He would state that the defendant had given statement showing the payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant. They are marked as Ex. P. 18 to P. 21. The witness would state that Flat No. l02a the Committee had recorded that a sum of Rs. 2,16,250. 00 had been paid and for Flat No. 104 a sum of Rs. l,79,500. 00 had been paid. According to the witness, the Committee had not recorded all the payments made to the defendant with reference to the two Flats. The witness states that the plaintiff is ready to pay whatever the amount the Court may direct to pay. The Committee had also recorded the other claim by the plaintiff for 550 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 20. 1. 1984. The Committee had allotted 550 sq. ft. (385 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 103-B. Ex. P. I is the allotment letter with reference to Flat No. 104 on the First Floor.


The rate mentioned is Rs. 574. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 2 is the certificate issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. dated 20. 4. 1985 staling that Flat No. 102 measuring 550 sq. ft. has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Ex. P. 3 is the allotment letter dated 20. 1. 1984 in favour of Mrs. Savitri Kohli in and by which Flat No. 102 in the First Floor was allotted to her. The area is 550 sq. ft. @ Rs. 574. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 4 is the letter dated 22. 4. 1987 from the plaintiff to the defendant requesting the defendant to confirm the payments made. The plaintiff had also sent a cheque for Rs. 28,500. 00. This is with reference to Flat No. 104. Ex. P. 5 is letter dated 22. 4. 1987 from the plaintiff to the defendant requesting the defendant to confirm the payments already made. The plaintiff had enclosed a cheque for Rs. 31,500. 00. Ex. P. 6 is the letter dated 2. 5. 1987 from the defendant to the plaintiff canceling the receipt of Rs. 28,500. 00 for Flat No. 104. Ex. P. 7 is the letter dated-2. 5. 1987 from the defendant to the plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 31,500. 00 forflat No. 102. Ex. P. 8 is letter dated 16. 1. 1988 by the plaintiff to the defendant enclosing a cheque for Rs. 17,000. 00 for Flat No. 104. Ex. P. 9 is the letter dated 16. 1. 1988 from the defendant to the plaintiff enclosing a cheque for Rs. 18,700. 00 for Flat No. 102. Ex. P. 10 is the receipt dated 14. 6. 1990 for payment of Rs. 11,750. 00 bycheque for Flat No. 104. Ex. P. 11 is letter from the defendant to the plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of a sum of Rs. 13,750. 00 towards Flat No. 102. Ex. P. 12 is a receipt dated 14. 6. 1990 for payment of Rs. 13,750. 00 by cheque for Flat No. 102. Ex. P. 13 is the letter dated 31. 12. 1990 from the plaintiff to the defendant requesting the defendant to send the floor plan demarcating the Flat area of Flat No. 102 measuring 550 sq. ft. Ex. P. 14 is of the same date for the same request for Flat No. 104. Ex. P. 15 is the letter dated 7. 9. 1990 to the plaintiff staling that the plaintiff had not paid the amounts. Ex. P. 16 is letter dated-7. 9. 1990 making the demand for the amount due. Ex. P. I 7 is the notice dated 13. 9. 1990 on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant with reference to Flat No. 102. Ex. P. 18 is the statement of account showing the payments made by the plaintiff for Flat No. 102. The documents show that for Flat No. 102 the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 4,02,750. 00. Ex. P. 19 is the statement of account with reference to Flat No. 104 which shows that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 3,06,750. 00. Ex. P. 20 is statement of account with reference to Flat No. 107 booked by Oriole Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 21 is statement of account with respect to Flat No. 106 by the same Co. The witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff has not explained the relevancy of these two statement of accounts.


(90) AFTER considering the documents, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment and the plaintiff is allotted 900 sq. ft. covered area in the first floor taking into account the space available and number of claimants in this floor.


(91) MANNU Electronics had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 3. 1. 1984. The Committee had allotted 750 sq. ft. (525 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 102. Mannu Electronics have not filed any suit and it is not known what is the basis on which the Committee had made the allotment. Therefore, the claim is rejected.


(92) CDR. NARINDER Pratap Singh had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 3. 1. 1984. The Committee had noted that he has paid a sum of Rs. 3,51,500. 00 asagainstthecostofrs. 3,05,500. 00 and thus had made payment115. 06%. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 107. Cdr. Narindra Pratap Singh (Retd.) his wife Mrs. Surjeet Kaur and his son Mr. Mandeep Singh had filed Suit No. 701/91 praying forinjunction restraining Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. from canceling the allotment and from reducing the area. Cdr. Narindra Pratap Singh appeared himself as Public Witness. I on 6. 8. 1996. He has filed the agreement dated 3. 1. 1984 marked as Ex. P. 1. According to him. Flat No. 108a in the First Floor was booked. The area was 500 sq. ft. and the rate was Rs. 574. 00 per sq. ft. The payments made are evidenced by the receipts Ex. P. 2 to P. 16. According to him, the Committee had allotted Flat No. 107. He had offered to pay sufficient Court fee for the relief of specific performance and he undertook to pay any extra amount as may bedirected by this Court. On 8. 8. 1996 the plaintiffs had paid Additional Court feesofrs. 6,000. 00.


(93) EX. P. I is the allotment letter dated 3. 1. 1984. Flat No. 108a is mentioned. Covered area of 500 sq. ft. on the first floor was booked. Ex. P. 2 is the copy of the receipt dated 3. 1. 1984 for payment of Rs. 81,000. 00 by way of cheque dated 3. 1. 1984 for Flat No. 108a. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 3. 1. 1984 for the payment of Rs. 81,000. 00 by way of cheque dated 3. 1. 1984 for Flat No. 108a. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 19. 6. 1984 for payment of Rs. 12,500. 00 by way of cheque dated 15. 6. 1984. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 13. 12. 1984forrs. 12,500. 00 bywayofchequedated 12. 12. 1984. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 6. 5. 1985 for the payment of Rs. 12,500. 00 by cheque dated 6. 5. 1985. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 18. 7. 1985 for Rs. 12,500. 00 by cheque dated 21. 11. 1985. Ex. P. 10 is the receiptdated 20. 3. 1987 for Rs. 20,000. 00 by cheque dated 13. 3. 1987. Ex. P. I I is the receipt dated 19. 12. 1986 for Rs. 38,800. 00 by cheque dated 18. 12. 1986. Ex. P. 12 is receipt dated 4. 7. 1987 for Rs. 12,500. 00 by cheque dated 4. 7. 1987. Ex. P. 13 is the receipt dated 30. 4. 1987 for the payment of Rs. 18,700. 00 by cheque dated 30. 4. 1987. Ex. P. 14 is the receipt dated 15. 7. 1987 for Rs. 4,500. 00 by cheque dated 15. 7. 1987. Ex. P. 17 is receipt dated 27. 6. 1988 for payment of Rs. 12,500. 00 by cheque dated 24. 6. 1988. Ex. P. 16 is the receipt dated 12. 7. 1988 for Rs. 75,000. 00 by cheque dated 11. 7. 1988.


(94) HAVING regard to the payments made and the agreement, the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment and the plaintiffs are allotted a covered area of 500 sq. ft. in the first floor.


(95) MR. Balram Bhasin had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 20. 1. 1984. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,39,600. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 3,53,000. 00 and thus paid 93. 20%. The Committee had allotted 481 sq. ft. (337 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 109-C. Mr. Balram Bhasin filed I. A. 1490/95 objecting to the Final Report of the Committee. Mr. Bhasin had stated that the Committee committed an error in allotting space proportionate to the payment made. Mr. Balram Bhasin representingbalrambhasin (HUF) alongwith Smt. Pushpa Mohan had filed Suit No. 3796/92 for specific performance and for injunction against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Tejwant Singh. It is stated in the plaint that the agreement was on 20. 1. 1984. A sum of Rs. 2,86,797. 00 have been paid and the balance was Rs. 13,203. 00. In addition to this, the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 52,803. 00 as demanded by the defendants. Mr. Balram Bhasin has filed the affidavit by way of evidence on 6. 8. 1996. He has referred to Ex. P. 1 agreement dated 20. 1. 1984. He has also exhibited P. 2 to P. 15 receipts showing the payments made.


(96) EX. P. 1 is the allotment letter dated 20. 1. 1984 wherein it is shown that Flat No. 103 is allotted to the plaintiffs. It is in the first floor and covered areais500sq. ft. The rate was Rs. 600. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 2is receiptdated21. 1. 1984forthepayment of Rs. 1,15,000. 00 by way of cheque dated 19. 1. 1984. Ex. P. 3 is receipt dated 1. 5. 1984 showing the payment of Rs. 25,000. 00 by cheque dated 24. 4. 1984. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 16. 5. 1984 showing the payment of Rs. 25,000. 00 by way of cash. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 17. 12. 1984 for the payment of Rs. 13,000. 00 by way of adjustment on that date. Ex. P. 6 is the receipt dated 22. 12. 1984 for payment of Rs. 9,000. 00 in cash. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 26. 12. 1984 for Rs. 1,000. 00 in cash. Ex. P. 8 is the receipt dated 1. 2. 1985 for Rs. 7,000. 00 in cash. Ex. P. 9 is receipt dated 7. 5. 1985 by adjustment for payment of Rs. 16. 797. 00. Ex. P. 10 is receipt dated 24. 7. 1985 for payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 by way of commission adjustment. Ex. P. 11 is receipt dated 23. 2. 1987 for Rs. 10. 000. 00 by cheque dated 23. 21987. Ex. P. 12 is receipt dated 9. 3. 1987 for payment of Rs. 32,000. 00 by way of cheque dated 7. 3. 1987. Ex. P. 13 is receipt dated 10. 3. 1987 for payment of Rs. 14,400. 00 by adjustments. Ex. P. 14 is the receipt dated 19. 6. 1987 for Rs. 'l,403. 00 by cash. Ex. P. 15 is dated 27. 7. 1988 for Rs. 20. 000. 00 by way of adjustment.


(97) HAVING regard to the agreement and the payments made, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment and the plaintiffs are allotted 500 sq. ft. covered area in the first floor.


(98) MS. Indu Tondon had claimed 450 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 20. 1. 1984. The Committee had allotted 330 sq. ft. (231 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 109-B. She has not filed any suit not she appeared before the Court to prove her claim. Therefore, the claim stands rejected.


(99) M/s, Oriole Exports Pvt. Ltd. had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 20. 1. 1984. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 4,50,500. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 4,58,250. 00 and thus 98. 31% had been paid by the said Company. The Committee had allotted 737 sq. ft. (516 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 106. The same company had also claimed 760 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 20. 1. 1984. In this case the Committee had noted that the Company had paid Rs. 4,60,640. 00 asagainstthecostofrs. 4,64,360. 00 and98. 02%paymenthad been made. The Committee had allotted 754 sq. ft. (528 sq. ft. physical area) in the First Floor.


(100) M/s. Oriole Exports Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 3043/90 for declaration and for permanent injunction. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant Skipper Towers agreed to sell Flat Nos. l 06 and 107 having a floor area of 750 and 760 sq. ft. respectively. The rate agreed was Rs. 500. 00 plus the L and D. O. charges @ 74. 00 per sq. ft. The plaintiff had given the details of payment made for the Flats. The plaintiffs had also made the payments to the defendant on demand made by it. The plaintiff prays for a declaration declaring "the letters date 7. 9. 1990 has no effect". Mr. Sudhir Sareen, Managing Director of the Company was examined as Public Witness. I on 6. 8. 1996. He has spoken to Ex. P. I which is dated 5. 12. 1983 and Ex. P. 2 which is dated 21. 1. 1984. According to Mr. Sudhir Sareen for Flat No. 106 the amount payable was Rs. 3,75,000/. . and for Flat No. 107 the amount payable was Rs. 3,80,000. 00. He has spoken to Exs. P. 3 to P. 8 wherein the defendant had acknowledged the payments made by the plaintiff. Ex. P. 9 is the cancellation letter issued by the defendant on 7. 9. 1990. Ex. P. 10 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.


(101) EX. P. 1 is the letter of allotment to the plaintiff in respect of Flat No. 106 for the covered area of 750 sq. ft. on the First Floor. Ex. P. 2 is the letter of allotment with reference to Flat No. 107 on the First Floor covered area 760 sq. ft. Ex. P. 4 is the letter dated 2. 5. 1987 acknowledging receipt of payment of Rs. 78,750. 00 for Flat No. 106. Ex. P. 5 is the letter dated 16. 1. 1988 enclosing a cheque for Rs. 25. 500. 00 for Flat No. 106. Ex. P. 6 is the similar letter wherein a cheque for Rs. 69,240. 00 is enclosed. Ex. P. 7 is letter dated 16. 6990 from the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 18,750. 00 for Flat No. 106. Ex. P. 8 is the letter dated 16. 6. 1990 acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 10,000. 00 towards Flat No. 107. Ex. P. 9 is the letter dated 7. 9. 1990 acknowledging the allotment of Flat No. 107. Ex. P. IO is the notice dated 13. 9. 1990 with reference to Flat No. 106. Similar notice had been given with reference to Flat No. 107.


(102) HAVING regard to the documents and agreements, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 900 sq. ft. in first floor.


(103) MR. Prabhat Mehta had claimed 440 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 28. 6. 1984. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,68,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 3,50,440. 00 and had thus paid 104. 53%. The Committee had allotted 440 sq. ft. (308 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 111-B in the First Floor. He had filed Suit No. 1945/96claimingthereliefofspecificperformance. In the plaint, it is stated that one Radhika Investment entered into agreement in respect of Flat No. 103-A measuring 350 sq. ft. on the First Floor on 28. 6. 1984. The rate fixed was Rs. 700. 00 per sq. ft. The plaintiff got the assignment on 3. 7. 1985 and that was accepted by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. From 1985 to 1988 he had paid about Rs. 3,04,000. 00. By letter dated 13. 8. 1988 he was allotted Flat No. 111-A as against Flat No. 103-A and the area was changed from 350 to 440 sq. ft. @ Rs. 700. 00 per sq. ft. On 11. 10. 1989 a floor plan was. given by the defendant to the plaintiff. Owing to the change of the Flat and increase in area it paid a sum of Rs. 56,000. 00 on 2. 1. 1990. According to the plaintiff, the payment was made in US Dollars. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant handed over possession of Flat No. 111 in the First Floor and the plaintiff installed fittings and furnitures and he had also installed a telephone. The plaintiff examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 13. 9. 1996. Ex. P. 1 photo copy of the agreement dated 28. 6. 1984 was exhibited. Ex. P. 2 is the letter dated 3. 7. 1985. Ex. P. 3 is the letter dated 3. 7. 1985 wherein the defendant had confirmed the assignment. Exs. P. 4 to P. 11 are the receipts. Ex. P. 12 is the statement of account. Ex. P. 13 is the letter dated 13. 8. 1988 wherein the Flat was changed from 103-A to 111-A increasing the area from 350 sq. ft. to 440 sq. ft. According to the plaintiff he had paid a sum of Rs. 3,68,400. 00. He referred to Ex. P. 14 possession letter and Exs. P. 15 to P. 18 showing the payment of telephone bill. He had accepted the report of the Committee. He marked Ex. P. 19 floor plan. Col. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyers Association cross examined the witness.


(104) I have perused the documents. Ex. P. I is the allotment letter dated 28. 6. 1984 to Radhika Investment and that shows that agreement relate to the Flat No. 103-A for a covered area of 350 sq. ft. Ex. P. 2 is the assignment letter. Ex. P. 3 is the endorsement wherein the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. had accepted the assignment. The receipts show the payment of money by the plain tiff and as stated by the witness on 13. 9. 1996. Flat was changed from 103-A to 111-A and the area was increased to 440 sq. ft. That is evidenced by Ex. P. I I the receipt for the payment of Rs. lo,000. 00 by way of cheque.


(105) HAVING regard to the documents filed by the plaintiff and the agreement, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. The plaintiff is allotted covered area of 440 sq. ft. in the First Floor.


(106) MR. Manish Garg had claimed 167 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 13. 8. 1984. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. l,12,360. 00 as against the cost of Rs. l,02,037. 00 and had thus paid 110. 12%. The Committee had allotted 167 sq. ft. (117 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 108-B. Mr. Manish Garg had filed Suit No. 3662/92 for specific performance and for injunction. It is stated in the plaint that there was an agreement on 13. 8. 1984 for the purchase of Flat No. 109-A measuring 167 sq. ft. on the First Floor. The rate was Rs. 574. 00 per sq. ft. The total consideration was Rs. 95,850. 00. The plaintiff attained majority in June 1989. The plaintiff had excess amount of Rs. 16,502. 00. The plaintiff refers to letter dated 12. 9. 1992 in and by which the defendants had reduced the area from 167 to 150 sq. ft. The plaintiff refers to the fact that he appeared before the Committee. Apprehending that the defendants may commit breach of the agreement the plaintiff filed this suit. Mr. M. L. Garg,fatheroftheplaintiffwasexaminedasp. W. 1 and he has spoken to the agreement Ex. P. 1 and the payments made vide receipts Ex. P. 2 to P. 13.


(107) I have perused Ex. P. 1 the agreement dated 13. 8. 1984. It refers to covered area of 167 sq. ft. and Flat No. 109-A in the first floor. I have also perused the receipts.


(108) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment of the space and accordingly the plaintiff is allotted 160 sq. ft. covered area in the First Floor instead of 167 sq. ft. claimed by the plaintiff.


(109) S. Surjeet Singh had filed Suit No. 126/91 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from canceling the allotment. According to him, he entered into an agreement with the defendant on 15. 10. 1987 with reference to Flat No. 112-A in the First Floor for a covered area of 120 sq. ft. According to him, he had paid Rs. 65,000. 00 till 2. 7. 1988 and by January 1990 he had paid to the tune of Rs. 91,200. 00 being 95% of the total consideration. He examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 6. 8. 1996. He had marked Ex. P. I the allotment dated 15. 10. 1987. Exs. P. 2 to P. 5 are receipts.


(110) THERE was no space in the first floor on the date of the agreement and as such the plaintiff cannot claim any space at all. The plaintiff is not entitled to allotment. The plaintiff shall be paid the sum of Rs. 91,200. 00 from out of the common pool.


(111) M/s. Donhill Tobacco Co. (P) Ltd. had filed Suit No. 2486/92 claiming the relief of specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Tejwant Singh. According to the plaint, the plaintiff entered into an agreement for the sale of Flat bearing No. 101-A in the first floor measuring 750 sq. ft. and a Car Parking Space. The agreement was on 12. 2. 1990 and the rate was Rs. l,000. 00 per sq. ft. Mr. Anil Aggarwal was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. He speaks to the agreement Ex. P. I on 12. 2. 1990 and the payments made thereunder.


(112) THE agreement being on 12. 2. 1990 there is nothing further to be considered in the matter. The claim for allotment is rejected. Plaintiff had made the payment of Rs. 5,62,000. 00. The plaintiff shall be paid a sum of Rs. 5,62,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(113) M/s. Laxmi Distributors Ltd. had filed Suit No. 2490/92 for the relief of specific performance and injunction against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Tejwant Singh. It is stated in the plaint that on 12. 2. 1990 the defendants agreed to sell Flat No. 102-A in the First Floor measuring 750 sq. ft. and a Car Parking Space. It is stated in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 5,62,000. 00 had been paid. Mr. Sunil Aggarwal who was examined as Public Witness. I in Suit No. 2486 /92, was examined as Public Witness. 1 in this case also. He has referred to the agreement dated 12. 2. 1990 and also the payments also.


(114) INASMUCH as the agreement was dated 12. 2. 1990 no further consideration is necessary. The defendants do not dispute the payments made by the plaintiff to them. The claim for allotment and damages are rejected. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the payment of Rs. 5,62,000. 00 and this shall be paid from out of the common pool. Mr. Mukul Gupta and Smt. Kunj Gupta had filed Suit No. 3970/92 for the relief of specific performance and in the alternative for damages. Mr. Mukul Gupta had also filed objections in IA. 1478/95 to the Final Report submitted by the Committee. In the report in item No. 34, the name of Manish Gupta is given. In the plaint it is stated that Mr. Manish Gupta and Mr. Mukul Gupta were minors in 1983 and through their father they entered into an agreement for the purchase of Flat No. 107- A in the First Floor. Defendant issued allotment letter on23. 5. 1983. By 13. 4. 1987 the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 3,42,000. 00. The aforesaid Mr. Manish Gupta was the brother of Mr. Mukul Gupta, first plaintiff, he died intestate on 14. 1. 1992 in a road accident. Plaintiff No. 2 Smt. Kunj Gupta is the mother of plaintiff No. 1 and Mr. Manish Gupta. The mother is entitled to the estate of Mr. Manish Gupta, she being class I heir. Mr. Mukul Gupta, the first plaintiff, examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 30. 8. 1996. He has referred to the agreement dated 23. 5. 1982 and marked the same as Ex. P. 1. The agreement was for Flat No. 107-A measuring 760 sq. ft. covered area. He tendered in evidence Exs. P. 2 to P. 21 the receipts for payment. The witness has stated that the claim was made before the Committee and his name figures at serial No. 34 in Annexure I. Accordingly Flat No. 108-C was allotted to the extent of 560 sq. ft. According to him, as per the plan shown in the report Flat No. 108-C is only to the extent of 167 sq. ft. I have perused the agreement and also the receipts and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. The plaintiffs are allotted 700 sq. ft. covered area in the First Floor having regard to the space available and keeping in view that the distribution should be equitable.


(115) M/s. RAJ Overseas Travels Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 2209/93 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Geeta Anand, Ms. Rajan Anand and M/s. Tabaca Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff prays for declaration that it is entitled to retain of possession of Flatno. 111. lnthealtemative,itisclaimedthatifflatno. 111 cannot be allotted Flat No. 101-A should be allotted. It is stated in the plaint that one Ms. Ritu Arora entered into an agreement on 7. 11. 1981 for the purchase of office space in the building. The said Ms. Rita Arora assigned her rights in the name of the plaintiff. By letter dated 16. 11. 1981 the plaintiff intimated the assignment to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. After assigning between the period 1981 to 1988 the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 1,36,418. 76. By allotmentletterdated6. 11. 1989 the plaintiff was allotted Flat No. 101-A in the First Floor. The area approximately was 500 sq. ft. In the year 1989-90the plaintiff making payments and the total amount paid by the plaintiff was Rs. 5,78,000. 00. The first defendant had confirmed by letter dated 21. 12. 1990 that it had received full and final payment. In paragraph 12 it is stated that defendants 2 and 3 Ms. Geeta Anand and Ms. Ranjan Anand who have been earlier allotted Flat NO. III were allotted 209 and they had booked only 440 sq. ft. , the plaintiff was allotted Flat No. III and they were given Flat No. 209 which was 440 sq. ft. The Committee appointed by this Court had directed eviction by the plaintiff in this premises. The plaintiff is the rightful allottee of Flat No. 111. Without prejudice to the claim for Flat No. III, the plaintiff would state that in the alternative it could be given Flat No. 101-A. The plaint was subse quently amended in 1996 claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to Flat No. 111 or in the alternative for Flat no 101-A. Mr. B. R. Bhanot was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 14. 8. 1996. According to him, he is the Managing Director of the plaintiff Co. Ex. P. 1 is the copy of the agreement of the year 1981. He refers to Exs. P. 2 to P. 24 the receipts to show the payment of Rs. 5,78,000. 00. Ex. P. 25 is a receipt for payment of Rs. 1,36,418. 70. Ex. P. 26 is the allotment letter dated 6. 10. 1989. Exs. P. 27 and P. 28 are again letters showing the allotment. According to him, the Committee had put his name in the waiting list at serial No. 53. Mr. N. S. Bajwa, learned Counsel for defendants 2 and 3 Ms. Geeta Anand and Ms. Ranjan Anand cross-examined the witness. In the cross examination the witness would admit that the original agreement was for Basement No. 20. According to the witness, the possession was given to the Company on 21. 12. 1990. Col. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyers Association crossexamined the witness. He put a question to the witness that in the list prepared by the Committee the plaintiff is shown as having booked space in lower basement, the witness admitted the same to be correct. Ex. P. I is the letter dated 16. 11. 1981 in and by which Ms. Ritu Arora had written to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. about the assignment to the plaintiff with reference to the area in the Basement No. 20. Ex. P. 26 is the allotment letter dated 6. 10. 1989 in favour of the plaintiff with reference to Flat No. 101-A to the extent of 500 sq. ft. This does not refer to any earlier agreement or any assignment in favour of the plaintiff. Receipts Exs. P. 2 to P. 19 show only the allotment of lower Basement No. 20. Ex. P. 18 is as late as on 8. 6. 1988. Ex. P. 20 is a receipt dated 6. 10. 1989 for the payment of Rs. 1,36,418. 75 which refers to First Floor area 500 sq. ft. Flat number is not mentioned. It refers to transfer of LB-20. Ex. P. 21 is a receipt dated 6. 10. 1989 for the payment of Rs. l,25,000. 00 which also does not refer to Flat number. Ex. P. 22 is receipt dated 2. 1. 1990 for payment of Rs. 1,13,581. 25 and this refers to Flat No. 101-A in the first floor. Ex. P. 23 is a receipt dated 16. 10. 1989 for payment of Rs. I lakh by way of two cheques dated 13. 10. 1989 which refers to Flat No. 101-A. Ex. P. 24 is receipt dated 21. 12. 1990 for payment of Rs. 5,500. 00 in cash and Flat number is mentioned as111 Ex. P. 25 is a copy of the statement of account. It is only a typed copy which shows the payment of Rs. 1,36,418. 70. Ex. P. 27isa letter dated 21. 12. 1990 from the first defendant to the plaintiff granting permission to start interior decoration in Flat No. 111. Ex. P. 28isletterdated21. 12. 1990statingthatflat had been changed from 101-A to 111.


(116) IN view of these documents, the claim of the plaintiff for allotment of Flat No. 101-A or 111 cannot be accepted because in 1989 there was no space available for being sold by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. The Committee had put the plaintiff in the waiting list. I am now concerned with the claim of the plaintiff for allotment. The plaintiff has not made out any case for allotment. Therefore, the claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff claims that it had paid Rs. 5,78,000. 00 and the payment is not disputed. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 5,78,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(117) SMT. Savitri Devi Kohli had filed Suit No. 62/95 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Tejwant Singh for the relief of specific performance. It is stated in the plaint that she entered into an agreement on 20. 1. 1984 for Flat No. 101. She has not chosen to examine herself to establish her claim. Therefore, the suit for allotment stands rejected. It shall be open to her to take appropriate action against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the money, alleged to have been paid by her.


(118) MR. Baldev Singh and his mother Mrs. Avtar had filed Suit No. 2326/96 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the relief of specific performance. It is stated in the plaintiff that first plaintiff Mr. Baldev Singh entered into an agreement dated 8. 10. 1990forallotmentofflatno. ll3onthemezzanine/lstfloorforanareaof 100 sq. ft.


(119) THE agreement is on 8. 10. 1990 and, therefore, the claim of the pintiffs cannot at all be considered. It is stated that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000. 00. That is not disputed. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 1,20,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(120) MRS. Prem Gulati had filed Suit No. 2181/96 for specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. with reference to 100 sq. ft. area in Flat No. 112-A in the first floor on the basis of agreement dated 11. 10. 1990. Smt. Prem Gulati examined herself as PW. 1 and she marked Ex. P. 1 agreement.


(121) 0n the date of the agreernent there was no spaceavailable on the first floor and no further consideration is necessary. The claim of the plaintiff is rejected. It is stated that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 70,000. 00 and that is not disputed. Therefore, the plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 70,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(122) THE group of Mr. Vijendra Singh, I /6th owner would claim allotment of an extent of 1048 sq. ft. The Committee had allotted Flat Nos. 104 and 105 as could be seen from the plan attached to the Report. I have already referred to their case and they shall be entitled to allotment but 1048 sq. ft. cannot be allotted. Having regard to the number of allotments and the space is available, Mr. Vijendra Singh Group is allotted 900 sq. ft. in the first floor.


(123) SECOND Floor Now I shall take up the allotment for the second floor.


(124) M/s. Mysore Electro had applied for 1000 sq. ft. in the second floor on the basis of agreement dated 3. 2. 1979. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 5,87,900. 00 as against Rs. 5,16,000. 00 and thus had paid 113. 93%. The Committee had allotted 1000 sq. ft. covered area (700 sq. ft. physical area) in Plat No. 502 in the 5th Floor. Mysore Electro had neither filed any suit nor had anyone appeared on its behalf before the Court to establish its claim. Therefore, the claim stands rejected.


(125) MR. Rahul Bhatnagar had filed Suit No. 3095/92 claiming relief of specific performance for the purchase of Flat No. 207-A on the second floor measuring 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 3. 2. 1979. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,04,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,58,000. 00 and thus had paid 117. 83% The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. covered area (350 sq. ft. physical area) in Flat No. 1106 in the 11th Floor. It is stated in the plaint that there was an agreement dated 3. 2. 1979 between Mysore Electroplating (Pvt.) Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for sale of Flat No. 207-A having a covered area of 500 sq. ft. in the second floor @ Rs. 400. 00 per sq. ft. On 7. 1. 1987 the rights were assigned in favour of the plaintiff by Mysore Electroplating (Pvt.) Ltd. The plaintiff had made payments and become entitled to a Flat in the Complex. According to the plaintiff, the defendant changed the Flat from 207-A to 202-A. Therefore, the claim is made only to 202-A. Mr. Rahul Bhatnagar was examined as Public Witness. I. It is stated by him to a question 'what is the date of the agreement', 'the agreement was entered into on 2. 7. 1979 between Mysore Electro plating Pvt. Ltd. and the defen dants. Subsequently I got the contract assigned in my favour on 7. 1. 87. Ex. P. I is the original agreement and Ex. P. 2 is the allotment agreement. ' According to the witness Ex. P. 1 is the original agreement. Exs. P. 3 to P. 7 are the receipts. According to the witness, the Committee allotted 500 sq. ft. on the 11th Floor Flat No. 1106.


(126) EX. P. I is stated to be a copy of the letter dated 7. 1. 1987 from Mysore Electroplating Pvt. Ltd. to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is stated that there was an agreement on 3. 2. 1979 between Mysore Electroplating Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. The agreement must have been between Mysore Electroplating Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd.


(127) THERE is absolutely no proof to show that the agreement between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Mysore Electroplating Pvt. Ltd. and none from Mysore Electroplating Pvt. Ltd. have been examined by the plaintiff to prove the agreement by Skipper Sales Pt. Ltd. Plaintiff had not produced the receipts issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for payments made by Mysore Electroplating Pvt. Ltd. The whole basis of the plaintiff's claim that there was an agreement on 3. 2. 1989 falls to the ground. Ex. P. 2 is the allotment letter dated 7. 1. 1987 by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff with reference to Flat No. 207-A. Therefore, the relevant date for consideration is only 7. 1. 1987 and not 3. 2. 1979. Exs. P. 3 to P. 7 are the receipts after the date 7. 1. 19897. Ex. P. 8 is letter dated 9. 7. 1990 by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff which is not relevant because it is after when people had stated approaching this Court for reliefs. Ex. P. 9 is an application made by the plaintiff before the Committee consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anand and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khanna. The plaintiff had claimed the date of booking as 7. 1. 1987.


(128) HAVING regard to these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has made out any case for allotment. The claim for allotment is rejected. So far as the payments made by the plaintiff are concerned, that is not disputed by the defendants 1 and 2 and, therefore, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree for the recovery of the amount. Accordingly, the suit for allotment is dismissed and there shall be a decree directing defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,04,000. 00 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.


(129) MR. Yoginder Raj had claimed 500 sq. ft. in the second floor on the basis of agreement dated 5. 3. 1983. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 2,66,392. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,58,000. 00 and had thus paid 103. 25%. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1111 in the 11th Floor. Mr. Yoginder Raj had filed Suit No. 1336/92 for specific performance against four defendants. In the plaint it is stated that there was an agreement between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Lucky Star Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd. with reference to Flat No. 209-A in the second floor measuring 500 sq. ft. On 5. 5. 1983 the plaintiff got the rights assigned from Lucky Star Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd. in their favour. The purchase of Flat was after obtaining the prior approval from the Income Tax Authorities. The Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Range-1 passed the order on 6. 9. 1985 permitting the purchase. On 16. 7. 1983 the Company agreed to assign the rights to the plaintiff. The plaintiff prays for specific performance with reference to Flat No. 209a in the second floor measuring 500 sq. ft.


(130) MR. Yoginder Raj was examined as Public Witness. 1. According to him the date of agreement was 5. 5. 1983. According to him he had paid Rs. 3,06,392. 00. He has also booked a Car Parking Space. He had marked the copy of the Search List by the Income Tax Department as Ex. P. 1. He referred to Ex. P. 2 copy of the statement of account issued by Skippers. Exs. P. 3 to P. 6 are the photo copies of the receipts. Ex. P. 3 is receipt dated 1. 2. 1989 for payment of Rs. 10,000. 00 by way of cheque for Flat No. 209a on the second floor. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 14. 11. 1988 for the payment of Rs. 4,500. 00 by cheque. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 14. 11. 1988 for Rs. 7,500. 00 by cheque. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 12. 9. 1990 for Rs. 17,392. 00 by cheque. Ex. P. 2 is the statement of account showing the payment of Rs. 3,06,392. 00


(131) THE plaintiff has not proved the agreement and even in the examination in chief he has not stated as to why he has not been able to get the copies from the Income Tax Department. In the absence of proof of agreement the claim of the plaintiff cannot be considered at all. The claim for allotment stands rejected. The plaintiff states that he had paid Rs. 3,06,392. 00 which is evidenced by statement of account Ex. P. 2.


(132) IN view of the fact that the defendant has not chosen to contest the claim for money, the plain tiff will be entitled to decree for money. Accordingly, there shall be a decree dismissing the suit for allotment and directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,06,392. 00 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.


(133) MR. Sarabjit Singh had claimed 350 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 5. 3. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 2,86,740. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,55,745. 00 and had thus paid 112. 12%. The Committee had allotted 350 sq. ft. (245 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1110-Bin the 11th Floor. Mr. Sarabjit Singh had filed OMP 42/93 in the lower Court which was later on withdrawn in this Court and registered as Suit No. 148/93. Mr. Sarabjit Singh is the first plaintiff and his breather Mr. Bhupinder Singh is the second plaintiff. The suit is against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. It is stated in the plaint that there was an agreement on 21. 3. 19896 for the purchase of Flat No. 206-A in the second floor of an approximate area of 350 sq. ft. According to the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs. 2,86,740. 00 had been paid. The defendant showed a tentative list to the Committee without showing the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, they had instituted a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the real and bona fide allottee. Mr. Sarabjit Singh was examined as Public Witness. I on 20. 9. 1996. The agreement dated 21. 3. 1986 is marked Ex. P. 1. The receipts evidencing the payments are marked Exs. P. 2 to P. 10. The defendant sent the statement of account dated 6. 5. 1991 that is marked as Ex. P. 11. According to the plaintiff, he appeared before the Committee and the Committee had allotted Flat No. 11 10-B on the 11th Floor.


(134) EX. P. 1 is the allotment letter dated 21. 3. 1986. Ex. P. 2 is the receipt dated 5. 3. 1986 for payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 by way of cheque by the plaintiff. This is by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 21. 3. 1986 for payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 by way of cheque for Flat No. 206-A, second floor issued by the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 3. 6. 1986 issued by Skipper Ltd. for Rs. 26,000/ - by cheque for Flat No. 206-A. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 17. 6. 1986 for Rs. 50,000. 00 by cheque issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 12. 2. 1987 for Rs. 25. 000. 00 by cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 12. 2. 1987 for Rs. 25. 000. 00 by cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 24. 4. 1987 or Rs. 31,635. 00 by cheque is sued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 9 is receipt dated 13. 8. 1987 for Rs. 14,105. 00 by cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. IO is receipt dated 5. 10. 1988 for payment of Rs. 15. 000. 00 by way of cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 11 is the statement of account dated 6. 5. 1991 wherein the defendant had acknowledged the payment of Rs. 2,86,740. 00.


(135) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and the documents on record, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. The plaintiffs are allotted 350 sq. ft. covered area in the Second Floor.


(136) SMT. Pushpa Kapoor had claimed 225 sq. ft. in the Second Floor on the basis of the agreement dated 5. 8. 1986. The Committee had noted the payment of Rs. 2,04,117. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,07,157. 00 and Has thus noted the payment of 98. 58%. The Committee had allotted 222 sq. ft. covered area (155 sq. ft. Physical Area). Smt. Pushpa Kapoor had filed Suit No. 2135/96 for specific performance. In the plaint it is stated that there was an agreement dated 5. 8. 1986 with reference to 206-B measuring 225 sq. ft. In paragraph I it is stated that Flat was transferred on 21. 11. 1987. It is stated in para 1 that on 5. 8. 1986 there was an agreement between Mr. Sunil Bedi and Mrs. Pinki Bedi for the purchase of Flat No. 206-B.


(137) SMT. Pushpa Kapoor was examined herself as Public Witness. 1 on 17. 9. 1996. According to her. Ex. P. 1 is the agreement for the purchase of Flat by Mr. Sunil Bedi and Mrs. Pinki Bedi. The rights in the agreement were assigned in favour of the plaintiff on21. 11. 1987. The endorsement is marked as Ex. P. 2 and the transfer letter is Ex. P. 3. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,04;l 17. 50 as evidenced by receipts Exs. P. 4 to P. 11. According to her, the Committee had allotted the space as mentioned in the Report at serial No. 51 in Annexure 1.


(138) EX. P. I is allotment letter dated 5. 8. 1986 to Mr. Sunil Bedi and Mrs. Pinki Bedi with reference to Flat No. 206b 225 sq. ft. on the second floor. Ex. P. 2 is the endorsement thereon in and by which Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had accepted the assignment Ex. P. 3 is the letter given by Mr. Sunil Bedi and Mrs. Pinki Bedi to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. requesting to recognise the assignment. Ex. P. 4 is receipt for Rs. l,71,000. 00 paid by Mr. Sunil Bedi and Mrs. Pinki Bedi. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated for the payment of Rs. 27,000. 00 by way of cheque by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 1. 8. 1986 for the payment of Rs. 35,000. 00 and issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Bedi and Mrs. Pinki Bedi. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 8. 6. 1987 for Rs. 16,500. 00 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Bedi and Mrs. Pinki Bedi. Ex. P. 8 is a receipt dated 2. 6. 1987 for the payment of Rs. 20,000. 00 by way of cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Bedi and Mrs. Pinki Bedi. Ex. P. 9 is a receipt dated 13. 5. 1987 for the payment of Rs. 20,000. 00. by way of cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Bedi and Mrs. Pinki Bedi. Ex. P. 10 is receipt dated 20. 11. 1987 for payment of Rs. 20,250. 00 by way of cheque issued to the plaintiff by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 11 is receipt dated 27. 6. 1988 for payment of Rs. 12,867. 50by way of cheque issued to the plaintiff by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(139) HAVING regard to the facts and documents, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment and accordingly the plaintiff is allotted 225 sq. ft. covered area in the Second Floor.


(140) MR. Ajay Luthra had filed Suit No. 1898/92 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Tejwant Singh claiming there lief of specific performance. The plaintiff did not appear and the learned Counsel reported no instructions.


(141) I have perused the documents. Before the Committee appointed by this Court Mr. Ajay Luthra's date of booking to be 7. 2. 1989 on the second floor 450 sq. ft. @ Rs. 1,600. 00. On that ground alone, the claim is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the suit for allotment is dismissed. It shall be open to the plaintiff to take appropriate steps for the recovery of the amount paid by him.


(142) MRS. Vidhu Seth w/o Mr. Sanjay Seth had filed objections to the report of the Committee and objection was presented on 15. 7. 1994. According to Mrs. Vidhu Seth there was an agreement dated 28. 7. 1989 with the builder Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of 267 sq. ft. covered area. On 29. 12. 1990 Mrs. Vidhu Seth received a letter from the builder that instead of original allotted Flat No. 211c she had been allotted Flat No. 212 measuring 34clsq. ft. in the second floor. According to her, a sum of Rs. 2,45,850. 00 had been paid. On 31. 12. 1990 she was put in possession of the Flat. Subsequently, she was dispossessed from the premises. She prays for the allotment of the Flat 212 in the second floor which is in her possession. . She also filed Suit No. 2308/91 for injunction restraining Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. from interfering with the possession. She has also relied upon the agreement dated 28. 7. 1989. She examined herself as Public Witness. 1 on 7. 8. 1996. Ex. P. I is the agreement dated 28. 7. 1989 in respect of Flat 211-C measuring 250 sq. ft. on the second floor. Ex. P. 2 is the receipt showing payment of Rs. l,46,850. 00. The defendant allotted Flat No. 212 on the second floor measuring 380 sq. ft. The defendant issued letter Ex. P. 3. The defendant also issued statement of account Ex. P. 4. Defendant gave a plan which is marked as Ex. P. 5. According to her, she had paid Rs. 2,45,850. 00 upto 31. 12. 1990. Exs. P. 6 and P. 7 are the receipts showing payment. On 31. 12. 1990 possession was given as evidenced by Ex. P. 8. According to her she approached the Committee and the Committee had put her on the waiting list.


(143) EX. P. I is the allotment letter dated 28. 7. 1989 which shows that the allotment is on Upper Ground Floor for a covered area of 267 sq. ft. It is only on 29. 12. 1990 the defendant wrote to the plaintiff that they had allotted Flat No. 212 measuring 340 sq. ft. on the second floor.


(144) IN view of the fact that the agreement was in the year 1989, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be considered. The objections and the suit for allotment are dismissed. The plaintiff claims to have paid Rs. 2,45,850. 00 and that is not disputed by the defendant. The plaintiff shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2,45,850. 00 from out of the common pool.


(145) MR. ATAM Prakash had filed Suit No. 2907/96 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. claiming the relief of specific performance. He is one of the co-owners of the property. The case of the plaintiff is that on 24. 6. 1977 there was an agreement between the owners and Skipper Saias Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of the plot. For some reasons that could not be proceed with and, therefore, on 6. 8. 1981 a collaboration agreement was entered into. Later on there was an agreement dated 3. 11. 1986 between the owners and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. By this agreement the builder had agreed to allot carpet area of 2,000 sq. ft. in the following manner:


"flat No. 204 on the second floor 1500 sq. ft. carpet area and 500 sq. ft. on the 10th floor".

The builder had also agreed to allot one Car Parking Space in the open space. On the basis of this agreement, the plaintiff had claimed relief of specific performance claiming Flat No. 204 in the second floor measuring 1500 sq. ft. carpet area or Flat No. 304,1500 sq. ft. carpet area in that floor and 500 sq. ft. carpet area in the 6th floor in Flat No. 608.


(146) MR. Atam Prakash was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 11. 12. 1996. He has spoken to the agreement for sale and also the collaboration agreement and agreement dated 3. 11. 1986. The fact that he is entitled to l/6th share in the premises No. 22, Barakhamba Road is not disputed by any of the parties. Ex. P. 2 is the agreement dated 6. 10. 198l Ex. P. 3 is the agreement dated 3. 11. 1986. Ex. P. 4 is the letter dated 9. 12. 1991 from the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 5 is the plan. Ex. P. 5a is the statement given before the Committee. Ex. P. 6 is the extract from the Final Report of the Committee.


(147) HAVING regard to the documents and in the circumstances, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established his claim. He is allotted 1500 sq. ft. covered area in the second floor in Flat No.


(148) I shall deal with the allotment in the 6th floor when I deal with the 6th floor and also Car Parking Space when I deal with the same.


(149) SMT. Gayatri Devi, Mr. Madhukar Singh, Mr. Diwakar Singh, Mr. Vaibhav Singh and Mr. Gaurav Singh have filed Suit No. 2908/96 for the relief of specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs are entitled to l/6th undivided share in the plot bearing No. 22, Barakhamba Road. They referred to the original agreement for sale, collaboration agreement on 16. 1. 1981 and also the tripartite agreement dated 3. 11. 1986. They claimed the relief of specific performance with reference to 2000 carpet area in Flat No. 201 or Flat No. 301 plus one Car Parking Space No. 18 in the Basement.


(150) MR. Diwakar Singh, the third plaintiff, appeared as Public Witness. 1 on 11. 12. 1996. He has referred to the agreements and has claimed 2000 sq. ft. carpet area in the second floor and also Car Parking Space. It is not necessary to deal with the documents over again. As already dealt with in Suit No. 2907/96, the plaintiffs are entitled to allotment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are allotted 2000 sq. ft. covered area in the Second Floor.


(151) RELATING to Car Parking Space, I shall deal with it when I refer to the claim relating to the Car Parking Space.


(152) RAJESH Wadhwav. Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Govil, Mr. Atul Kumar, Mr. Jitender Singh and Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta had filed Suit No. 2909/96 for specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. They are co-owners of the property. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff No. 1 Mr. Atul Kumar is the son of late Mr. Rajinder Singh. Mr. Rajinder Singh expired on 23. 12. 1984. He had left a Will dated 24. 8. 1984 bequeathing his share on Mr. Atui Kumar. Plaintiff No. 1 and other two plaintiffs hold 1 /6th share in the property. The plaint refers to the agreement between the owners and builders and it is not necessary to refer them over again. The plaintiffs claim 2000 sq. ft carpet area in Flat No. 202 in the Second Floor or in the Third Floor plus one Car Parking Space No. 17 in the Basement. Later on the plaint was amended.


(153) MR. Atui Kumar, first plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 11. 12. 1996. He has spoken to the agreements between the owners and the builders and he has also marked Exs. P. I to P. 5a. The witness claims that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2000 sq. ft. covered area in the Second Floor.


(154) HAVING regard to documents and facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs are allotted 2000 sq. ft. covered area in the Second Floor.


(155) THE claim for Car Parking Space No. 17 in the Basement shall be considered at the time the claims relating to Car Parking Space are dealt with by me. Third floor


(156) I shall now deal with allotment for Third Floor. The available space is 7460 sq. ft.


(157) M/s. Deena Paints Ltd. had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated9. 11. 1977. It is noticed by the Committee that a sum of Rs. 3,36,562. 00 asagainst thecostofrs. 3,76,312. 00 andthusithadpaid89. 44%ofthecost. The Committeehad allotted 671 sq. ft. (470 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 311-A. Deena Paints Ltd. had filed Suit No. 2423/96 claiming the relief of specific performance praying for the allotment of Flat No. 301 with Car Space on the Third Floor and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 7,02,000. 00 towards the refund of amount and damages. It is stated in the plaint that on 9. 11. 1977 there was an agreement between the defendants and Mr. Baljit Singh Shah Puri with reference to Flat No. 301 with Car Parking Space. On 31. 1. 1984 the said Mr. Baijitsingh Shah Puri assigned the rights in favour of the plaintiff. The total amount paid was Rs. 3,44,062. 50.


(158) MR. Sushil Ahuja, Director of the plaintiff Co. was examined on 11. 10. 1996. Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 relate to the registration of the Company and the Memorandum of Association. Ex. P. 3 is the resolution passed by the Company. Ex. P. 4 according to the witness is agreement regarding Flat No. 301 for 750 sq. ft. with Car Parking Space. Ex. P. 5 is the letter dated 31. 1. 1984 where in the original agreement holder Mr. Baijit Singh Shah Puri had assigned the rights to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 6 is the confirmation by the defendant. Exs. P. 7 to P. 25 are the receipts. By letter dated 19. 3. 1987 Ex. P. 26 the defendants had waived the fire fighting and marble finishing charges.


(159) EX. P. 4isallotmentletterdated9. 11. 1977 which refers to Flat No. 301,750 sq. ft. Third Floor. The rate mentioned is Rs. 385. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 5 is the letter dated 31. 1. 1984 in and by which Mr. Baijit Singh Shah Puri had assigned the rights to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 24 is the receipt dated 13. 7. 1983 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for paymentofrs. 28,875. 00 frommr. Baljitsinghshahpuri. Ex. P. 23isthereceiptdated 22. 10. 1981 for Rs. 28,875. 00 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Baijitsingh Shah Puri. Ex. P. 22 is the receipt dated 14. 07. 1980 for Rs. 13,250. 00 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Baijitsingh Shah Puri. Ex. P. 21 is the receipt dated 9. 11. 1977 for Rs. 45,000. 00 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Baijitsingh Shah Puri. Ex. P. 20 is the receipt dated 2. 7. 1981 for Rs. 69,437. 00 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Baijit Singh Shah Puri. Ex. P. 7 is the receipt dated 1. 12. 1984 for Rs. 14,437. 50 by cheque issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 8 is the receipt dated 15. 6. 1984 for Rs. 7,438. 00 by cheque issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 9isthereceiptdated2. 7. 1984forrs. 7,000. 00 bychequeissued byskippersales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 10 is the receipt dated 2. 1. 1985 for Rs. 14,437. 50 by cheque issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. I I is the receipt dated 8. 3. 1985 for Rs. 14,437. 50by cheque issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P12 is the receipt dated 3. 6. 1985 for Rs. 14,437. 50 by cheque issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 13 is the receipt dated 6. 8. 1985 for Rs. 14,437. 50 by cheque issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. Pl4 is the receipt dated28. 11. 1985 forrs. l4,437. 50 by cheque issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 15 is the receipt dated 27. 1. 1987 for Rs. 14,437. 50 by cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 16 is the receipt dated 8. 9. 1987 for Rs. 14,437. 50 by cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 17 is the receipt dated 11. 7. 1987 for Rs. 14,437. 50 by cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 18 is the receipt dated 1. 2. 1984 for Rs. 7,500. 00 bycash issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. I 9 is thereceiptdated 1. 2. 1989 for Rs. 6,750. 00 by cheque issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 26 is the letter dated 9. 3. 1987 wherein the first defendant had confirmed that the fire fighting and marble finishing charges had been waived as agreed earlier.


(160) HAVING regard to the documents and circumstances, the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment of space. Accordingly, the plaintiff is allotted 750 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor.


(161) THE claim for Car Parking Space shall be considered at the time when claims relating to Car Parking Space are dealt with by me.


(162) M/s. Divya Industries had claimed 550 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 9. 11. 1977. The Committee had noted that it had paid a sum of Rs. 2,46,812. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,75,962. 00 and had thus paid 89. 44%. The Committee had allotted 492 sq. ft. (344 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 311-B in the Third Floor. Divya Industries had filed Suit No. 2424/96. It is stated in the plaint that on 9. 11. 1977 Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh Shah Puri entered into an agreement with Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of Flat No. 302 in the Third Floor with a Car Parking Space in the property. The area mentioned is 550 sq. ft. @ Rs. 385. 00 sq. ft. On 31. 1. 1982 there was an assignment in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims the relief of specific performance in respect of Flat No. 302 on the Third Floor with Car Parking Space in the property.


(163) MR. SUSHIL Ahuja,partner of the plaintiff firm, was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 11. 10. 1996. Ex. P. 1 is the certified copy of Form A which shows the registration of firm. Ex. P. 2 is the agreement dated 9. 11. 1977. Ex. P. 3 is the letter dated 31. 1. 1984 in and by which Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh Shah Puri assigned the rights to the plaintiff. Exs. P. 4 to P. 20 are the receipts. By letter dated 19. 3. 1987 Ex. P. 21 the defendant waived the fire fighting and marble finishing charges. Ex. P. 22 is letter dated 27. 7. 1988. The plaintiff had appeared before the Committee and the Committee had given allotment. The plaintiff claims as per the terms of the agreement the area of 550 sq. ft.


(164) EX. P. 2 is the allotment letter dated 9. 11. 1977, Flat No. 302 550 sq. ft. and the rate mentioned is Rs. 385. 00 per sq. ft. The allotment also refers to one Car Parking Space in the Upper/lower Basement for a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 /13,000. 00. Ex. P. 22 is the letter dated 31. 1. 1984 by the original agreement holder to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. requesting it to recognise the assignment. Ex. P. 3 is the endorsement dated 31. 1. 1984 which shows the assignment of the rights in favour of the plaintiff by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 4isareceiptdated9. 11. 1977forrs. 33,000. 00 by cheque by Skipper Sales Pvt. to the original agreement holder. Ex. P. 5 is a receipt dated 14. 7. 1980 for Rs. 19,937. 50 by cheque by Skipper Sales Pvt. to the original agreement holder. Ex. P. 19 is a receipt dated 2. 7. 1981 for Rs. 40,700. 00 by cheque by Skipper Sales Pvt. to the original agreement holder. Ex. P20 is a duplicate receipt dated 13. 7. 1983 for Rs. 21,175. 00 bycheque by Skipper Sales Pvt. to the original agreement holder. Ex. P. 6 is a receipt dated 22. 10. 1987 for Rs. 21,175. 00 by cheque by Skipper Sales Pvt. to the original agreement holder. Exs. P. 7 to P. 18 are the receipts showing the payments made by Divya Industries to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(165) HAVING regard to the documents and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that tine plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment and accordingly the plaintiff is allotted 500 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor instead of 550 sq. ft. claimed for the purpose of distributing space available to as many allottees as possible who had booked Flats before December, 1986.


(166) THE claim for Car Parking Space shall be considered at the time when claim relating to Car Parking Space are dealt with by me.


(167) MR. Vinod Khanna had claimed 550 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 23. 11. 1977. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. 3,27,007. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,75,962. 00 and had thus paid 118. 50%. The Committee had allotted 550 sq. ft. (385 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the Third Floor in Flat No. 310-A. Mr. Vinod Khanna had filed Suit No. 3668/92 against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the relief of specific performance claiming Flat No. 303 in the Third Floor. It is stated in the plaint that on 23. 11. 1977 Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. entered into agreement with one Shashi Setia for the sale of Flat No. 303 measuring approximately 550 sq. ft. in the Third Floor @ Rs. 385. 00 per sq. ft. That Shashi Setia transferred his rights in favour of Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Uppal, which was accepted by the first defendant. On 27. 4. 1983 the said Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Uppal transferred her rights to the plaintiff. Thereafter, payments have been made to the defendants and as on the date of plaint the plaintiff had paid Rs. 3,27,007. 50. As the defendants had not given the Flat, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit for specific performance. Mr. Vinod Khanna examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 22. 8. 1996. He tendered in evidence Ex. P. 1 the original receipt issued to Mr. Setia. Ex. P. 2 is the receipt issued to Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Uppal. Ex. P. 3 is the agreement between the plaintiff and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Exs. P. 6 to P. 21 are the receipts showing the payments. Ex. P. 22 is the letter received relating to the possession. According to this witness, he appeared before the Committee and according to him he is ready to accept the Report of the Committee. He has expressed and willingness to pay any amount that the Court may direct him to pay.


(168) EX. P. 1 is the receipt dated 23. 11. 1977 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the payment of Rs. 15,000. 00 to Mr. Shashi Setia by way of cheque. Ex. P. 2 is the receipt dated 8. 4. 1981 for payment of Rs. 30,000. 00 to Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Uppal by way of cheque issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 3 is the letter dated 27. 4. 1983 by Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Uppal to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. requesting the Company to accept the assignment in favour of the plaintiff. Ex. P. 4 is a receipt dated 27. 4. 1983 for payment of Rs. 550. 00 by Mr. Vinod Khanna by cash and receipt issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 5 is the allotment dated 27. 4. 1983 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff agreeing to sell Flat No. 303 of an approximately covered area of 550 sq. ft. @ Rs. 385. 00 per sq. ft. Exs. P. 6 to P. 21 are the receipts issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the payments made by the plaintiff Mr. Vinod Khanna. Ex. P. 22 is letter dated 13. 11. 1990 by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. stating that the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. is ready to hand over possession as it had received clearance from the NDMC regarding location of Sub-station, 2 Lifts have started functioning, fire clearance from the Chief Fire Officer was expected at any moment.


(169) HAVING regard to the documents and circumstances, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment and accordingly the plaintiff is allotted 500 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor instead of 550 sq. ft. claimed.


(170) MR. Shamsher Singh had claimed allotment of 570 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 3. 1. 1978. The Committee had noted that a sum of Rs. 3,24,515. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,96,828. 00 have been paid and thus he had paid 109. 33% of the cost. The Committee had allotted 570 sq. ft. (399 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the. Third Floor in Flat No. 309-B. Mr. Shamsher Singh had filed Suit No. 2285/96 for specific performance along with Km. Jyotsana and Km. Deepali. The case of the plaintiff is that an agreement was entered into with Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. on 3. 1. 1978 for the purchase of Flat No. 308-A on the Third Floor measuring 600 sq. ft. @ Rs. 405. 00 per sq. ft. The agreement provided for a sale of Car Parking Space also in the Lower Basement. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs approached the Committee and the Committee had allotted some space. The plaintiffs now seek to enforce the agreement and claim Flat No, 308a in the Third Floor measuring 600 sq. ft.


(171) MR. Shamsher Singh, first plaintiff examined himsel fasp. W. 1 on4. 10. 1996. He speaks to agreement dated 3. 1. 1978. The same is marked Ex. P. 1. The receipts are Exs. P. 2 to P. 23. The witness says that his name appears at serial No. 55 in Annexure 1. The Committee had also allotted Car Parking Space at serial No. 83 at page 172 of the Report.


(172) EX. P. 1 is the allotment dated 3. 1. 1978 which mentions Flat No. 308-Aarea 600 sq. ft. Third Floor @ Rs. 405. 00 per sq. ft. The agreement also refers to one Car Parking Space in the Upper/lower Basement for the sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 / 13,000. 00. Exs. P. 2 to P. 10 are the receipts issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff which mentions the floor area 600 sq. ft. Exs. P. 11 to P. 23 are the receipts issued to the plaintiff by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. where the area mentioned is 570 sq. ft. The plaintiffs do not explain as to how the area was reduced from 600 sq. ft. to 570 sq. ft. and how and when they objected to the same and the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. does not mention why the area was reduced to 570 sq. ft. In the interest of convenience, I am of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled to 600 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are allotted 600 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor. .


(173) REGARDING Car Parking Space, it shall be dealing with when I deal with the allotment relating to Car Parking Space.


(174) DR. Surinder Bir Singh had claimed 550 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 14. 1. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid 191. 08%. The Committee had allotted 550 sq. ft. (385 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 305a in the Third Floor. Dr. Surinder Bir Singh alongwith Mrs. Kulvinder Malik and Mrs. Jagbinder Kaur had filed Suit No. 3781/92 for specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for Flat No. 304 in the Third Floor. It is stated in the plaint that on 14. 1. 1978 one Mr. J. S. Kohli entered into an agreement for the purchase of 550 sq. ft. being Flat No. 304 in the Third Floor Rs. 385. 00 per sq. ft. In June, 1986 the plaintiffs got the assignment of the rights from Mr. J. S. Kohli. On 26. 6. 1986 Mr. J. S. Kohli informed Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. about the assignment. By letter dated 12. 9. 1986 Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. wrote to the plaintiff about the assignment. The plaintiffs had paid Rs. 3,26,557. 98 upto 1. 10. 1988. Dr. Surinder Bir Singh was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 14. 8. 1996. He speaks to Ex. P. I the agreement with Mr. J. S. Kohli by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 2 is the endorsement dated 26. 6. 1986. Ex. P. 3 is the letter dated 26. 6. 1986. The receipts are marked Exs. P. 4 to P. 20. The letters received by the plaintiffs are marked Exs. P. 21 and P. 22.


(175) EX. P. 1 is the allotment letter dated 14. 1. 1978 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. J. S. Kohli. It refers to Flat No. 304 Third Floor, area 550 sq. ft. @ Rs. 385. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 2 is the endorsement made on Ex. P. I in and by which the assignment is recognised by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of letter dated 26. 6. 1996 Ex. . P. 3 given by Mr. Jaswinder Singh Kohli. Ex. P. 4 is the letter dated 12. 9. 1986 from Skipper Sales to the first plaintiff wherein Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. had acknowledged the agreement and also the total amount of Rs. 2,10,100. 00. Exs. P. 5 to P. 20 are the receipts issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff for payments made. Ex. P. 21 is the letter dated 22. 11. 1986 from Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the first plaintiff making a demand for the sum of Rs. 45,625. 00. Ex. P. 22 is letter dated 9. 1. 1987 from the defendant to the plaintiff again making a demand of Rs. 28,820. 00 for fire protection measures. Ex. P. 23 is letter dated7. 6. 1988 again making a demand for Rs. 8,250. 00.


(176) HAVING regard to the documents and facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are allotted 500 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor instead of 550 sq. ft. claimed.


(177) MR. J. S. Kohli had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 4. 1. 1978. The Committee had noted that he paid 110. 08%and allotted 750 sq. ft. (525 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the Third Floor in Flat No. 302. Mr. J. S. Kohli had filed Suit No. 2529/96 claiming the relief of specific performance for 750 sq. ft. in the Third Floor. Mr. A. S. Dhody, power attorney of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. I on 12. 12. 1996. The power of attorney is marked Ex. P. 1. The agreement dated 14. 1. 1978 is marked Ex. P. 2. According to the witness, the plaintiff booked 1300 sq. ft. on the Third Floor in Flat Nos. 305 and 306. He had paid Rs. 1,26,200. 00. The receipts are Exs. P. 3, P. 4 and P. 5. Exs. P. 6 and P. 7 are also the receipts showing payments. Letter dated 12. 7. 1986 is exhibited as Ex. P. 8. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,86,400. 00. Ex. P. 9 is the statement of account. Further payments were proved by receipts Exs. P. 10 to P. 15. According to the witness, the plaintiff received letters Exs. P. 16, P. I 7 to P. 20. The witness states in the meanwhile the area was reduced from 1300 to 750 sq. ft. The witness also speaks to Exs. P. 21 to P. 25. The witness states that the Committee had allotted 525 sq. ft. physical area in Flat No. 4.


(178) EX. P. 2 is the allotment letter dated 14. 1. 1978 which refers to Flat No. 305 Third Floor, an approximate area 750 sq. ft. @ Rs. 385. 00. Exs. P. 3, P. 4 and P. 5 are the receipts issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for payments made by plaintiff for Flat Nos. 304 and 305 for floor area 1300 sq. ft. Ex. P. 6 is the letter dated 24. 7. 1981 from Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. J. S. Kohli staling that there was a balance of Rs. 50,150. 00. Ex. P. 7 is letter dated 22. 1. 1982 from Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff stating that a sum of Rs. 50,050. 00 was due and a notice made in the letter itself that a sum of Rs. 50,050. 00 had been received from you by draft. Ex. P. 8 is letter dated 12. 9. 1986 from Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to plaintiff about the transfer of the project to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 9 is the statement of account given by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Exs. P. 10 to P. 15 are the receipts issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the payment made by plaintiff. Ex. P. 16 is letter dated 15. 5. 1990 from Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. making a demand of Rs. 12,073. 00 from the plaintiff. Ex. P. 17 is letter dated 12. 3. 1990 from the defendant to the plaintiff stating that possession would be handed over to the plaintiff and some prestigious Japanese/korean Companies, reputed Indian Business Houses, Banks and Airlines are offering to take the Flat on rent @ Rs. 25. 00 per sq. ft. and they are also prepared to pay rent in advance upto 12 to 18 months. Ex. P. 18 is the letter dated 13. 11. 1990 from the defendant to the plaintiff stating that they had received clearance from NDMC regarding location of Sub-station and two Lifts have started functioning and clearance from Chief Fire Officer, Delhi was expected any moment. Ex. P. 19is letter dated 13. 11. 1990 stating that the possession will be given by 31. 12. 1990. Again Ex. P. 19 is letter dated 8. 5. 1990 from the defendant to the plaintiff stating that it had already applied for completion certificate. Ex. P. 20 is letter dated 19. 1. 1987 calling upon the plaintiff to pay Rs. 39,300. 00 for fire protection measures. Ex. P. 21 is the assessment order under the Wealth Tax Act in the name of the plaintiff. Ex. P. 23 is the order u/sec. 18 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 which shows the agreement between the plaintiff and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 24 is the endorsement u /sec. 16 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act from the Income Tax Department to the plaintiff which shows that the plaintiff was assessed as non resident. Ex. P. 25 is letter dated 14. 3. 1985 from Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to plaintiff to England address acknowledging the receipt of draft for Rs. 25,025. 00 for Flats 304 and 305. It may be noticed that Mr. Kohli had assigned rights in one Flat to the first plaintiff in Suit No. 3781 /92.


(179) I am satisfied on a consideration of the material produced that the plaintiff is entitled to the allotment of 750 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor. Plaintiff is allotted 700 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor instead of 750-sq. ft. claimed.


(180) MR. Rajinder Saigal had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 21. 2. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid 85. 80% and allotted 644 sq. ft. (541 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the Third Floor in Flat No. 304. Mr. Rajinder Saigal had filed Suit No. 3003/96 claiming the relief of specific performance. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 11. 12. 1996. The original agreement was on 16. 2. 1978 between Mr. Ramesh Khattar and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. The agreement is Ex. P. 1. On 21. 4. 1979, as evidenced by Ex. P. 2, the defendant accepted the assignment on the basis of letter Ex. P. 3 from Mr. Ramesh Khattar. Ex. P. 4 is a receipt. The witness had marked Exs. P. 5 to P. 20 receipts. The claim filed by the plaintiff before the Committee is marked Ex. P. 21. The witness had stated that the Committee had allotted Flat No. 304. The plaintiff claims the entire area as mentioned in the agreement and the plaintiff is willing to abide any further terms which this Court may impose.


(181) EX. P. I is the allotment letter. Ex. P. 2 is the endorsement on Ex. P. 1 made by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. on 24. 4. 1979 accepting the assignment on the basis of letter given by Mr. Ramesh Khattar on the same date and the letter is marked as Ex. P. 3. Ex. P. 4 is a receipt dated 24. 4. 1979 issued by Mr. Ramesh Khattar in favour of the plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 44,437. 50. Exs. P. 5 to P. 20 are the receipts issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for payments made by the plaintiff. Ex. P. 21 is the claim made by the plaintiff before the Committee wherein the date of booking is 21. 2. 1979.


(182) HAVING regard to the documents and the circumstances, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment and the plaintiff is accordingly allotted 700 sq. ft. (covered area) in the Third Floor instead of 750 sq. ft. claimed'


(183) MR. Rajiv Ohri had claimed 550 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 24. 2. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid 106. 04% and had allotted 550 sq. ft. (385 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat 306-A. Mr. Rajiv Ohri alongwith Mrs. Ellora Ohri filed Suit No. 3610/90 against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts.


(184) MR. Satbir, Retd. Naval Officer, who is father-in-law of plaintiff Mr. Rajiv Ohri had given evidence as Public Witness. I on 26. 7. 1996. He has. tendered in evidence Ex. P. 1 allotment letter dated 16. 3. 1976. Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 are the receipts. Plaintiff appeared before the Committee and it is stated that in stead of Flat No. 303 the Committee had allotted 306a on the Third Floor.


(185) EX. P. 1 is allotment letter dated 16. 3. 1978 in favour of Mr. Rajiv Ohri and Mrs. Ellora Ohri for Flat No. 303 in the Third Floor of an area of 550 sq. ft. Rate mentioned is Rs. 405. 00 per sq. ft. Exs. P. 2 to P. 24 are the receipts showing the payment made by the plaintiff and issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(186) ON the basis of the material produced, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 500 sq. ft. covered area on the Third Floor instead of 550 sq. ft. claimed.


(187) MS. Kumud Malik had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 29. 4. 1978. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) on the Third Floor.


(188) MS. Kumud Malik had not filed any suit nor had she appeared before the Court. Therefore, the claim stands rejected. She is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for the recovery of money due from Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(189) MR. P. Oudhbir had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 19. 8. 1978. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) on the Third Floor.


(190) MR. P. Oudhbir had not filed any suit nor had he appeared before the Court. Therefore, the claim stands rejected. He is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for the recovery of money due from Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(191) SHRI Inderjeet Singh had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 10. 4. 1979. The Committee had noted that he had paid 122. 02% of the cost and had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 308-Cin the Third Floor. Mr. Inderjeet Singh has filed Suit No. 3044/96 claiming the relief of specific performance for Flat No. 309b in the Third Floor measuring 500 sq. ft.


(192) MR. Gurinder Singh was examined as Public Witness. I on behalf of the plaintiff on 11. 12. 1996. According to him, on 10. 4. 1979 M/s. Sona Enterprises entered into an agreement with Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of Flat No. 309-B in the Third Floor admeasuring500sq. ft. @rs. 200. 00 persq. ft. Ex. P. 1 is the copy of power of attorney. Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 are the documents showing payment and booking. Ex. P. 4 is the allotment on 27. 3. 1981. Transfer letter is Ex. P. 5. Exs. P. 6 to P. 24are the receipts. The witness also states that plaintiff is ready and willing to pay any other amount that may be directed by this Court.


(193) EX. P. 1 is a copy of the power of attorney. Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 are the receipts issued to Sona Enterprises by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 5 is a letter of assignment from Sona Enterprises to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. Even on the date of assignment on 27. 3. 1981 Mr. Inderjeet Singh had paid a sum of Rs. 37,000. 00 by cheque to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. as evidenced by Ex. P. 6. Ex. P. 4 is the allotment letter dated 27. 3. 1981 in favour of the plaintiff. Exs. P. 7 to P. 24 are the receipts showing the payments by the plaintiff to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(194) ON the basis of material produced by the plaintiff, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a claim for allotment of 500 sq. ft. on the Third Floor. Accordingly, plaintiff is allotted 500 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor.


(195) MRS. Swaran Kumari had claimed 760 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 20. 4. 1981. The Committee had noted that she had paid 117. 83% and had allotted 760 sq. ft. (532 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 303 in the Third Floor. She had filed Suit No. 3114/92 claiming the relief of specific performance against Mr. Tejwant Singh and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd -for Flat No. 310 in the Third Floor.


(196) MR. Gurcharan Lal, husband of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 11. 9. 1996. Ex. P. I is the power of attorney. Ex. P. 2 dated 21. 4. 1981 is the letter of transfer. Ex. P. 3 is agreement dated 9. 5. 1978. Ex. P. 4 is the endorsement on the agreement dated 21. 4. 1981. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 4,62,080. 00. Receipts are marked Exs. P. 5 to P. 28. Ex. P. 29 is the claim made by the plaintiff before the Committee. The witness stated that plaintiff was ready and willing to pay any further amount that may be directed by this Court.


(197) I am convinced that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 750 sq. ft. in the Third Floor.


(198) MS. Champa Wati had claimed 140sq. ft. onthebasisofagreementdated 19. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 95. 385. 00.


(199) I need not consider other details as she has not appeared before the Court nor has she filed any suit. Therefore, the claim stands rejected. She is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for the recovery of money due from Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(200) M/s. Sona Enterprises had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 27. 3. 1984. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 67,960. 00. M/s. Sona Enterprises had filed Suit No. 3068/96 for specific performance.


(201) THERE is no space available in the Third Floor. Therefore, the claim for allotment cannot at all be considered. However, the agreement being valid and acceptable one, I direct payment of Rs. 67,960. 00 out of the money collected from the allottees. As the agreement is genuine, I have directed the payment out of the money collected from the allottees taking into account the circumstances. Otherwise they will have to move the Court for recovery of the money from the Company. Under the circumstances, the award of interest is not possible. The appropriate orders for payment of money shall be passed after the monies are deposited by the allottees.


(202) MR. Pramod Bhatia had claimed 465 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 27. 2. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 2,73,960. 00. Mr. Pramod Bhatia, Mr. Vinod Bhatia, Ms. Gauri Arora and Ms. Neeti Arora (minor) through her father/guardian Mr. J. R. Arora had filed Suit No. 3974/91. Mr. K. L. Bhatia was examined as Public Witness. I. He would speak that the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 4,12,669. 00.


(203) THE claim cannot be considered because there is no space available. In the circumstances, I direct the payment of Rs. 4,12,669. 00 to the plaintiffs out of the common pool. Under the circumstances, the award of interest is not possible. The appropriate orders for payment of money shall be passed after the monies are deposited by the allottees.


(204) MRS. S. Malhotra (Surbhi Malhotia) had claimed 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 25. 7. 1986. The Committee had found that she had paid Rs. 2,75,310. 00. Mrs. Surbhi Malhotra and Ms. Neha Malhotra had filed Suit No. 2291 / 96 for specific performance. Ms. Neha Malhotra was examined as Public Witness. I and she spoke that plaintiffs had made the payment of Rs. 2,75,300. 00.


(205) THE agreement being later on point of time when there was no space available in the Third Floor the claim cannot be considered. In the circumstances, I direct payment of Rs. 2,75,300. 00 to the plaintiffs out of the common pool. Under the circumstances, the award of interest is not possible. The appropriate orders for payment of money shall be passed after the monies are deposited by the allottees.


(206) MRS. Krishna Bhanotra had claimed 225 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 29. 7. 1986. The Committee had found that she had paid Rs. 2,38,000. 00 and allotted 225 sq. ft. (158 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 9th Floor. Mrs. Krishna Bhanotra and Smt. Poonam Sharma had filed Suit No. 2290/96 for specific performance. Mr. R. N. Rana was examined as Public Witness. I and he spoke that plaintiffs had made the payment of Rs. 2,38,000. 00.


(207) THE agreement being later in point of time when there was no space available in the third floor the claim cannot be considered. In the circumstances, I direct payment of Rs. 2,38,000. 00 to the plaintiffs out of the common pool. Under the circumstances, the award of interest is not possible. The appropriate orders for payment of money shall be passed after the monies are deposited by the allottees.


(208) MASTER Udit Choudhari son of Mr. Bharat Choudhari had filed Suit No. 1955/96 claiming the relief of specific performance on the basis,of the agreement dated 19. 5. 1989. Mr. Bharat Choudhari, the father and next friend of the plaintiff, was himself examined as Public Witness. I on 18. 9. 1996. He would speak to the agreement dated 19. 5. 1989 with reference to Flat No. 304-B 500 sq. ft. @ Rs. 700. 00 per sq. ft. He has spoken to receipts Exs. P. 2 to P. 6. The plaintiff had appeared before the Committee and the Committee had put the plaintiff in the waiting list. According to the plaintiff, he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,92,500. 00.


(209) HAVING regard to the fact that the agreement was in 1989, plaintiff's case for allotment cannot be considered at all. Therefore, the claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. l,92,500. 00 tothedefendantand the defendant has not chosen to contest the same. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for allotment. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. l,92,500. 00 from out of the common pool.


(210) MR. Har Govind V. Navani had filed Suit No. 1963/96 for specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 25. 10. 1988 for Flat No. 304-A on the Third Floor. The rate mentioned is Rs. 700. 00 per sq. ft. Mr. Har Govind Navani examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 18. 9. 1996. He had spoken to the agreement and the payments made. According to him, he had paid Rs. 1,92,500. 00.


(211) ON the date of the alleged agreement there was no space available on the Third Floor. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for allotment cannot be considered. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. l,92,500. 00 and the defendant does not contest the same. Therefore, the plaintiff shall be entitled only to the recovery of money. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for allotment. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 1,92,500. 00 from out of the common pool.


(212) COL. Bhagwan Chandra Shukia had filed Suit No. 2035/96 for mandatory injunction praying the following relief:


" (a) pass a decree of mandatory injunction for the possession of 55 percent of the originally allotted Flat space to the plaintiff on the third floor of Skipper Bhawan at 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, or in the alternative, (b) pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the market value of the Flat space allotted to him measuring 120 sq. ft. at Skipper Bhawan at 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. "

The plaintiff states that there was an agreement on 20. 1. 1989 with reference to Flat in the Third Floor denoted X-12a (1). According to the plaintiff, he had paid Rs. l,05,000. 00 to the defendant. Col. Bhagwan Chandra Shukia examined himself as P. W. I on 19. 9. 1996. He has spoken to Ex. P. I agreement and receipts Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 showing the payment.


(213) THE relief of mandatory injunction cannot at all be granted. That relief is rejected. Having regard to the circumstances that the plaintiff had paid Rs. l,05,000. 00 to the defendant, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the same. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. l,05,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(214) MR. Dinesh Aggarwal had filed Suit No. 2330/96 claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to Flat 314-A in the Third Floor admeasuring 260 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 14. 10. 1988. Mr. Ashok Gupta, power of attorney of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. I on 4. 10. 1996. He has spoken to the agreement Ex. P. 2 and payments made by the plaintiff. According to the witness, a sum of Rs. 64,080. 00 has been paid. In the plaint, it is stated that the balance amount is Rs. l,49,520. 00.


(215) THE witness has proved the payment of Rs. 64,080. 00. On the date of the agreement dated 14. 10. 1988 there was no space available on the Third Floor. Therefore, the claim for allotment is rejected. The defendant does not contest the fact that it had received Rs. 64,080. 00 from the plaintiff. Plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 64,080. 00 from out of the common pool.


(216) MR. Manohar Lal Sharda and his wife Smt. Subhadra Sharda had filed Suit No. 2385/96 for specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. The Committee has not allotted any Flat. In the plaint, it is stated that in the first instance Ms. Kumud Malik entered into an agreement with Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of Flat No. 309 in the Third Floor with a Car Parking Space on 29. 4. 1978. The area mentioned is 500 sq. ft. and the rate was Rs. 415. 00 per sq. ft. With the intervention of the defendant, Ms. Kumud Malik agreed to assign the Flat to Central Estate Agency, 13, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and endorse- ment to that effect was made on 5. 3. 1979. The aforesaid Central Estate Agency with the permission of die defendant agreed to assign the rights to the plaintiff and the endorsement was made on 19. 7. 1986. The plaintiffs had paid Rs. 4,19,287. 00 on all accounts to Central Estate Agency. As against the total amount due, the plaintiffs deposited Rs. 2,07,500. 00. The plaintiffs were also asked to deposit Rs. 15,000. 00 /rs. 13,000. 00 towards the cost of Car Parking Space in the Upper/lower Basement. It is stated in paragraph 21 that as per Commission's report the plaintiffs were to be allotted Flat No. 705 in the 7th floor in lieu of Flat No. 309. The plaintiffs thus asked for specific performance with reference to Flat No. 705 of an extent of 500 sq. ft. The plaintiffs filed 1. A. 9679/96 for amendment of the plaint which was also allowed. One Mr. R. C. Sharma, representing to be a power of attorney of the plaintiffs was examined as Public Witness. I on 9. 10. 1996. According to him, the second plaintiff Mrs. Subhadra Sharda is his sister and first plaintiff is his brother-in-law. Ex. P. I/i is the power of attorney. The date is not clear. A Notary Public in Delhi has attested the photo copy on 25. 9. 1996. Ex. P. I/2 is the allotment letter dated 29. 4. 1978 in favour of Mrs. Kumud Malik. Ex. P. 3 is the endorsement dated 5. 3. 1979 which reads as follows:


"flat No. 309 area 500 sq. ft. is transferred in favour of M/s. Central Estate Agency, 13 Shanker Market, New Delhi. For Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. sd/- illegible 5. 3. 1979 Director"

On the date of the allotment letter dated 29. 4. 1978 no payment had been made and who no payment had been made had not been explained. The original allottee Mrs. Kumud Malik has not been examined and there is no letter from Mrs. Kumud Malik requesting Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to assign her rights in favour of Central Estate Agency. I can straightaway go to the receipt Ex. P. 1/13 which was marked as if it was a genuine document after Exs. P. l/3 to P. l/12 were marked. Ex, P. 1/ 13 makes a very interesting reading. It is receipt dated 5. 3. 1979 for the receipt of cheque dated 29. 4. 1978. In the normal course of events no businessman would receive a cheque which had become stale. The cheque dated 29. 4. 1978 would cease to have any validity on 29. 10. 1978. It is not proved that the cheque had been encashed within time. The plaintiffs want this Court to believe marking this document as Ex. P. I/13 that the payment was made on 5. 3. 1979 by way of cheque dated 29. 4. 1978. This itself shows that the transaction is not genuine. Ex. P. 1/12 is receipt dated 5. 3. 1979 issued to Central Estate Agency on which date Ex. P. 3 endorsement is found in Ex. P. 1/2. The alleged allotment letter in favour of Mrs. Kumud Malik as per these two documents, Mrs. Kumud Malik, was available in the office of Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. but curiously no document had been taken from her transferring her rights in favour of Central Estate Agency. Ex. P. I/4 is endorsement dated 19. 7. 1986 in Ex. P. 1/2 wherein Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. made the following endorsement:"all rights, title and interest in respect of Flat No. 309 measuring 500 sq. ft. in Skipper Bhawan, at 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, are transferred in favour of Shri Manohar Lal Shardaand Smt. Subhadra Sharda resident of 2712, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009, as per letter enclosed of M/s. Central Estate Agency dated 19th July, 1986. For Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. sd/- illegible Dated: 19. 7. 86 Director"

Here also there is no letter from Central Estate Agency to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. assigning the rights in favour of the plaintiffs. Ex. P. 1/5 is the receipt issued by Central Estate Agency to the plaintiffs for the receipt of Rs. 4,19,287. 00. Mr. Ram Avtar Singh is stated to be a partner of Central Estate Agency and another person whose signatures is not decipherable had also signed. No one from Central Estate Agency had been examined. Exs. P. I/6, P. I/7, P. I/8, P. I/9, P. I/10 and P. 1/11 are receipts showing the payment. Ex. P. l/12 is the receipt for cheque for Rs. 1. 500. 00 dated 5. 3. 1979 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Central Estate Agency which I have already referred to. Exs. P. I/14, P. I/15, P. I/16 and P. I/17are receipts issued showing some adjustments. Ex. P. 1/18 is receipt dated 22. 12. 1986.


(217) THE witness had filed Ex. P. 1/20 a tentative list of allottees wherein the names of Central Estate Agency and the plaintiffs are shown as item No. 192. Who has given this tentative list is not explained? Ex. P. 1/20 is not at all admissible in evidence.


(218) EX. P. 1/19 is stated to be the statement of claim before the Committee by P. W. I alleging that he was the power of attorney of the plaintiffs who were living in United States. There is no document to show that there was any power of attorney in his favour in 1991. Ex. P. 1/1 is stated to have been executed in United States where the plaintiffs are residing. The power of attorney is signed by a Notary Public but there is no authentication of the Notary Public. The power of attorney is engrossed on Rs. 10. 00 stamp paper in India. The attestation by a Notary Public in foreign country without proper authentication is not admissible in evidence. It is obvious that the power of attorney had been obtained in a hurry in September, 1996 or October, 1996 just for this purpose. How a power of attorney executed in a foreign country could be produced before Court and the probative value of such a document has been laid down by this Court in Rajesh Wadhwav. Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Govil, AIR 1989 Delhi 144. The learned Judge held on facts in that case as under:-


"it is true that the first power of attorney was not duly authenticated by the Notary, hence, the same was not valid to give any authority to the attorney to act on behalf of the respondent. "


(219) ONE. more fact which could be noticed is that the Committee had noted that Mrs. Kumud Malik had made independent claim. I had rejected that claim on the ground that she had not come forward to file an independent suit. This fact has not been put forth by the plaintiff in this suit. Another fact which I have noticed is, which the plaintiff has not mentioned in the plaint, in Annexure E-l the Committee has mentioned the names of Manohar Lal Sharda but the date of the agreement is not mentioned. The Committee has not explained as to how they had mentioned the name of the plaintiffs and also that of Mrs. Kumud Malik, the original agreement holder.


(220) HAVING regard to over all circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the plaintiffs. The claim for allotment stands rejected. Granting liberty to the plaintiffs to take up appropriate proceedings for the recovery of the amount from the defendant, the suit is dismissed.


(221) MRS. Raj Kumari, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Master Alok Kumar and Mrs. Meenakshi have filed Suit No. 2894/96 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to 2000 sq. ft. carpet area as comprised in Flat No. 203 measuring 1500 sq. ft. carpet area on the second floor (Flat No. 303 measuring 1,500 sq. ft. carpet area in case the Court holds that the change in floors and the addition of the additional floor was permissible to the defendants) and Flat Nos. 608a of the six floor measuring 500 sq. ft. carpet area, in total measuring 2000 sq. ft. carpet area, and also one Car Parking space No. 18 in the Basement. The fact that they are entitled to l/6th share is not disputed by any of the parties. The agreements in the year 1977, 1981 and 1986, which have been referred to by the Committee, cannot be disputed by anybody. Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta, the 4th plaintiff examined herself as Public Witness. I on 11. 12. 1996. She has referred to the fact that the plaintiffs are the lessees with reference to I /6th undivided interest in the property. Ex. P. I is the agreement dated 24. 6. 1977. Ex. P. 2 is the collaboration agreement dated 24. 8. 1981. Ex. P. 3 is the agreement dated 3. 11. 1986. The witness has also stated "the plaintiffs are entitled to 2000 sq. ft. of carpet area comprised in Flat No. 303 measuring 1500 sq. ft. and Flat No. 608a measuring 500 sq. ft. area alongwith garage No. 18. The area of Flat Nos. 303 and 608a are shown red in the site plan which is Exhibit P. 5. In case, this Hon'ble Court holds that the shift in floors in case of plaintiffs from 2nd to 3rd floor, because of the addition of mezzanine floor, was not permissible to the defendants, the plaintiffs claim the same areas on the floor, which was originally known as second floor. The suit of the plaintiff is correct. " The witness also stated that the plaintiffs are willing to comply with any further directions/terms, which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court.


(222) HAVING regard to the documents, facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to allotment of 1500 sq. ft. covered area in the Third Floor and their claim for allotment on the 6th Floor is rejected. As per the norms adopted by the Committee 30% has to be deducted from the covered area allotted and only Physical Area could be allotted. It must be more than 30% if the plaintiffs' claim of 2000 sq. ft. is considered as a covered area. That cannot be done. Deducting 30% from 2000 sq. ft. the physical area would be 1400 sq. ft. While making the allotment I do not make any distinction between covered area and physical area. I am allotting 1500 sq. ft. in the Third Floor. Therefore, they must besatisfied with the allotment of 1500 sq. ft. and they cannot claim any further allotment in the 6th Floor on the facts and circumstances of this case when so many agreement holders who entered into agreement in 1981 are not getting any allotment.


(223) REGARDING the Car Parking Space, I shall consider at the time I deal with the Car Parking Space.


(224) MR. Vijender Singh has filed Suit No. 2284/96 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for specific performance claiming 1275 sq. ft. on the Third Floor. According to him, there is an agreement dated 14. 1. 1985 with reference to 1000 sq. ft. on the Third Floor and another agreement on the same date with reference to 275 sq. ft. on the 10th Floor.


(225) THIS case is not on the basis of ownership but on the basis of agreements. Mr. Ajay Singh was examined as Public Witness. I on 8. 11. 1996. According to him, there was an agreement dated 13. 5. 1982 for 1275 sq. ft. comprising 1000 sq. ft. on the Third Floor and 275 sq. ft. on the 10th Floor. The total consideration was Rs. 4,46,000. 00. The agreements are marked Exs. P. 1 and P. 2. The receipt of the amount has been acknowledged by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. on 9. 4. 1986 which is marked as Ex. P. 3. There is a letter dated 19. 6. 1987 as Ex. P. 4. According to him, the Committee had allotted 1020 sq. ft. on the Third Floor as per the Final Report. Mr. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyers Association was permitted to cross examine Mr. Ajay Singh. In the cross examination Mr. Ajay Singh would state that the sum of Rs. 4,68,000. 00 was transferred to the account of the builder from the account of Mr. Manmohan Nath,who is his uncle. This transfer is effected on30. 6. 1984. Headmits that no orders were passed by the Income Tax Department for this transfer. Mr. Manmohan Nath has not been examined in this case. The transfer of the amount is not proved. Dr. Manmohan Nath examined himself as Public Witness. I in his Suit No. 2271 / 96 on 11. 10. 1996. In the cross examination he stated that he owed money to Mr. Vijender Singh and he brought about a transfer entry to show the payment of Rs. 4,68,000. 00. He would state "the entry was debited to Mr. Vijender Singh and credited to Skippers". When he was asked whether there was any letter evidencing a loan due from Mr. Vijender Singh to him, he said there was no letter. He was also not in a position to state the date or month or year of the loan. It was by transfer entry. The amount was paid over by Mr. Vijender Singh. What is stated by Dr. Manmohan Nath, should be proved by production of relevant documents? In the absence of relevant materials, I am not able to see that there was any transaction between Mr. Vijender Singh and Dr. Manmohan Nath and the amount was paid by Dr. Manmohan Nath to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. by transfer entry. To substantiate this, Dr. Manmohan Nath should have produced his transaction with Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd.


(226) IN the light of this, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Mr. Vijender Singh has not proved his agreement and,therefore, his claim for allotment is rejected. The suit is accordingly dismissed.


(227) I shall now deal with the allotments in the 4th Floor.


(228) DR. Manmohan Nath has claimed 4085 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 4. 7. 1977. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. 21,55,287. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 19,13,082. 00 and had thus paid 112. 62%. The Committee allotted 4085 sq. ft. (2860 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 401 in the 4th Floor and Flat No. 1009 in the 10th Floor. Dr. Manmohan Nath had filed Suit No. 2271/96. According to Dr. Manmohan Nath there was an agreement on 4. 7. 1977 and he had paid the amounts demanded by the defendants and he claimed specific performance for 4085 sq. ft. on the 4th Floor. Dr. Manmohan Nath examined himself as Public Witness. I on 11. 10. 1996. He has spoken to the agreement evidenced by Ex. P. I that is dated 4. 7. 1977. The receipt reads as follows:


"received a sum of Rs. 2,85,950. 00 (Rupees two lakhs eighty five thousand nine hundred fifty only) vide cheque No. 151483dated 4th July, 1977 drawn on The Punjab and Sind Bank Limited, Ambala City from Dr. Man Mohan Nath C/o Imperial Flour Mills, Ambala City towards the provisional booking of the 4th floor (approximate area of 8170 sq. ft.) @ Rs. 350. 00 per sq. ft. of the proposed multi-storeyed building at 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. "

He mentions that the agreed rate was Rs. 350. 00 per sq. ft. On the date of the agreement he paid Rs. 2,85,000. 00. The receipts are marked Exs. P. 2 to P. 6 and Ex. P. 7 is the statement of account. He would state that Ex. P. 8 dated 20. 6. 1992 shows that no further money was due from him. According to him, he had paid excess amount of Rs. 7,50,537. 00. Mr. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyers Association cross examined the witness. He has marked Exs. D. 1 and D. 2. Ex. D. 1 is the statement by Mr. Ajay Singh and Mr. Sandeep Sethi before the Committee. Ex. D. 2 is the letter dated 31. 12. 1986 wherein the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had demanded a sum of Rs. 6,19,296. 00. Ex. D. 3 is letter dated 17. 1. 1990 by which the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. demanded Rs. 1,37,619. 00 from the plaintiff. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established his claim. He is entitled to the allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 4085 sq. ft. Covered area on the 4th Floor.


(229) MR. Vijender Singh, as owner shall be entitled to the rest of the space in the 4th Floor i. e. 3375 sq. ft. covered area. His claim for 4597 sq. ft. is restricted to 3375 sq. ft. covered area. Accordingly, Mr. Vijender Singh is allotted 3375 sq. ft. in the 4th Floor.


(230) MRS. Laxmi Devi has claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 23. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that she had paid a sum of Rs. 62,145. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 88. 860. 00. The Committee had allotted 98 sq. ft. (69 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 3rd Floor in Flat No. 310-B. She had filed Suit No. 2213/96 claiming the relief of specific performance. She had earlier presented the Suit No. 422/93 in the District Court. She examined herself as Public Witness. I on 1. 10. 1996. She has marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 17. She has spoken that she has paid in all Rs. 1,01,905. 75 to the defendants.


(231) AS no space is available on the 4th Floor after the allotment to Dr. Manmohan Nath and the owner Mr. Vijender Singh, her claim for allotment cannot beconsidered. She will be entitled to return of the sum of Rs. 1,01,905. 75. There shall be a decree dismissing the suit for allotment and the plaintiff shall be entitled to return of the sum of Rs. 1,01,905. 75 from the amount of the common pool.


(232) MS. Bala Gupta had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 7. 8. 1984. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 97,160. 00 i. e. 101. 86%. The Committee had allotted 140 sq. ft. (98 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 5th Floor Flat No. 507a.


(233) MS. Bala Gupta had neither filed any suit nor had she appeared before the Court. Therefore, her claim stands rejected.


(234) MR. D. Singh and others (Diwan Singh and others) had claimed 369 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 9. 1. 1986. The Committee had noted that they had paid a sum of Rs. 3,92,250. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 339,738. 00 and had thus paid 115. 46%. The Committee had allotted 369 sq. ft. (258 sq. ft.) in the 9th Floor Flat No. 907-B. Mr. Diwan Singh and six others had filed Suit No. 3836/90 claiming the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cancelling die allotment and for rendition of accounts. Mr. Joginder Singh son of Mr. Diwan Singh was examined as Public Witness. I on 6. 8. 1996. He has marked Exs. P. I to P. 3 power of attorneys. Ex. P. 4 is the copy of the agreement. According to him, a sum of Rs. 2,90,656. 38 plus Rs. 84,131. 00 had been paid. Ex. P. 5 is the statement showing the payments made. Ex. P. 6 to P. 15 are the receipts. According to him, the Flat was allotted to some third parties and, therefore, CCP 4/93 was filed.


(235) INASMUCH as there is no space available on the 4th Floor, the claim of the plaintiffs for allotment cannot be considered. The claim of the plaintiffs for allotment for other floors also cannot be considered and the claim for allotment is rejected. However, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to the return of the money because the documents filed by the plaintiffs show the agreement between the plaintiffs and the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1986. The plaintiffs shall be paid Rs. 3,96,250. 00 from out of the common pool. C. C. P. 4/93 in the circumstances is dismissed.


(236) MR. N. S. Ahiuwalia had claimed 502 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 16. 1. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. 4,12,994. 00 and had thus paid 102. 07%. The Committee had allotted 502 sq. ft. (351 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 11th Floor in Flat No. 1107-B. Mr. N. S. Ahluwalia and six others had filed Suit No. 2356/92 for specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. , Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Tejwant Singh. Mr. N. S. Ahluwalia was examined as Public Witness. I on 8. 8. 1996. He has spoken to the booking of the Flat on 16. 1. 1986 and the payments made. According to him, the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. agreed to Flat No. 409 on the 4th Floor and about sell 502 sq. ft. @ Rs. 700. 00 per sq. ft. According to him, as against the total consideration of Rs. 3,51,400. 00 he had paid Rs. 4,12,994. 60. Exs. P. 2 to P. 14 are the receipts. Ex. P. 15 is the statement of account dated 5. 12. 1988.


(237) INASMUCH as there is no space available in the 4th Floor, the plaintiffs cannot be allotted any space in the 4th Floor. The payments by the plaintiff are proved. The plaintiffs shall be paid Rs. 4,12,994. 60 from out of the common pool.


(238) MR. Arun Kapoor had claimed 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 25. 7. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 2,75,300. 00 i. e. 111. 14%. The Committee had allotted 300 sq. ft. (210 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 11th Floor in Flat No. 1109-C. Mr. Arun Kapoor had filed Suit No. 2292/96 for the relief of specific performance. Mr. Arun Kapoor was examined as Public Witness. 1. According to him, he alongwith his father entered into an agreement for the purchase of Flat No. 411 on the 4th Floor measuring 300 sq. ft. @ Rs. 800/ - per sq. ft. The agreement is marked Ex. P. I. His father died and thereafter his father's share was transferred to him which is evidenced by Ex. P. 2. Exs. P. 3 to P. 16 are the receipts showing the payment. He states that he had paid Rs. 2,75300. 00.


(239) INASMUCH as there is no space available in the 4th Floor, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any allotment. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved the payment of money and, therefore, he shall be paid Rs. 2,75,300. 00 from out of the common pool.


(240) MR. Joginder Kumar had claimed 225 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 29. 7. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,02,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,07,157. 00. The Committee had allotted 219 sq. ft. (153 sq. ft. Physical Area) on the Third Floor. The said Mr. Joginder Kumar had not filed any suit nor had he appeared before the Court to prove his claim. Therefore, his claim stands rejected. He shall be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings against the defendants for the recovery of the amount paid by him.


(241) MR. Promod Khanna had claimed 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 21. 11. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 2,52,030. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,68,800. 00. The Committee had allotted 281 sq. ft. (197 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 5th Floor in Flat No. 508-A. Mr. Promod Khanna alongwith Computer Management Corporation had filed Suit No. 1880/96 for specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for Flat No. 409-A measuring 300 sq. ft. Mr. S. K. Khanna, the brother of the first plaintiff was examined himself on 12. 9. 1996. According to him, he holds the power of attorney and that is marked Ex. P. I. Ex. P. 2 is the letter dated 21. 11. 1986. Exs. P. 3 to P. 7 are the receipts for payment. According to him, the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 2,52,030. 00. He exhibited an extract from the Final Report of the Committee which is Exs. P. 8. Ex. P. 9 and P. 10 are the letters dated 26. 2. 1992 and 13. 11. 1993.


(242) INASMUCH as there is no space available on the 4th Floor, the claim of the plaintiffs cannot be considered for allotment and the claim for allotmentis rejected. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have proved the payments made to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. The first plaintiff, who is the proprietor of the second plaintiff, shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2,52,030. 00 from the common pool.


(243) APART from the above, Mrs. Manmohan Kaur Kohli had filed I. A. 1465/ 95 on 6. 7. 1994 objecting to the Final Report. According to her, she entered into an agreement on 30. 11. 1988 for anapproximate area of 290 sq. ft. @ Rs. 850. 00 sq. ft. on the 4th Floor. She alongwith three others had also filed Suit No. 2356/96 for specific performance seeking to enforce the agreement dated 13. 11. 1988.


(244) THE agreement is of the year 1988. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs for allotment cannot at all be considered. The plaintiffs have proved the payments made by Mrs. Kohli to first defendant. According to Public Witness. I a sum of Rs. 2,47,200. 00 hasbeenpaid to the defendant. The plaintiffs have also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 2,52,000. 00. There is absolutely no proof relating to this claim. That is rejected. The plaintiffs shall not be entitled to specific performance. However, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to the money paid by them to the defendant. Accordingly, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid the sum of Rs. 2,47,200. 00 from out of the common pool.


(245) 5th Floor I shall now deal with the allotments to the 5th Floor.


(246) M/s. Divya Enterprises had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 4. 1. 1978. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 2,93,815. 00 i. e. 88% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 660 sq. ft. (462 sq. ft.) in the 5th Floor Flat No. 503. M/s. Divya Enterprises had filed Suit No. 2425/96 for the relief of specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Tejwant Singh. Mr. Radhey Shyam partner of the plaintiff firm was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 11. 10. 1996. Ex. P. 1 is the document showing the partnership firm. Ex. P. 2 is the letter dated 15. 6. 1984 by the original agreement holder to the plaintiff assigning the interest to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 3 is the agreement dated 15. 6. 1983. Exs. P. 4 to P. 21 are the receipts. The plaintiff had made total payment of Rs. 2,93,812. 00. By letter dated l9. 3. 1987 Ex. P. 22 the defendant gave up the rights to collect payment towards fire fighting equipments and marble finishing. Ex. P. 23 is letter dated 27. 7. 1988 to show possession of the Flat.


(247) I have perused the documents filed by the plaintiff and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 750 sq. ft. in the 5th 'floor.


(248) MS. Chery Aggarwala had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of letter of allotment letter dated 23. 5. 1981. The Committee had noted that a sum of Rs. 2,78,964. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,31,875. 00 had been paid. According to the Committee, she had paid 120. 31% of the. cost. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 508-B. Ms. Chery Aggarwala through her father as next friend, had filed Suit No. 3621/92 claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to Flat No. 512 in the 5th Floor measuring 500 sq. ft. Mr. Arun Kumar Thirani, the power of attorney of the father of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. I on 30. 8. 1996. The plaintiff died after the filing of the suit. The father Mr. Rattan Kumar Aggarwala and the mother Mrs. Shakuntala Aggarwala were brought on record as L/rs. The witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs had proved Exs. P. I and P. 2, the letter of allotment and the assignment in favour of Ms. Cherry Aggarwala. Exs. P. 3 to P. 13 are the receipts showing payments to the builder.


(249) I have perused the documents. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs Mr. Rattan Kumar Aggarwala and Mrs. Shakuntala Aggarwala have proved their claim for allotment. They are allotted 500 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(250) MR. Jaswinder Singh had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 23. 5. 1981. The Committee had noted that he paid Rs. 2,77,873. 00 i. e. 119. 84% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 5th Floor in Flat No. 507-B. Mr. Ishwinder Singh alongwith Mr. Amardeep Singh had filed Suit No. 2180/96 for the relief of specific performance. Mr. Amardeep Singh was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 17. 9. 1996. He stated that he has been authorised to depose on behalf of the first plaintiff. He speaks to Ex. P. I. Ex. P. 2 is the transfer letter. Ex. P. 3 is the agreement dated 23. 5. 1981. Plaintiffs had paid Rs. 2,77,873. 50. The receipts are exhibited P. 4 to P. 22. The witness had undertaken to pay whatever money that is directed to be paid by this Court.


(251) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. The plaintiffs are allotted 500 sq. ft. on the 5th Floor.


(252) MR. Bimal Sangari had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 19. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that a sum of Rs. 69,160. 00 had been paid. The Committee had allotted 109 sq. ft. (76 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the First Floor Flat No. 109-B. Mr. Bimal Sangari has filed Suit No. 2242/96 claiming the relief of specific performance. Mr. Y. P. Sangari was examined as Public Witness. I on 3. 10. 1996. In the evidence the witness has spoken to the transfer letter and the end orsement which are marked Exs. P. 3 and P. 4. Exs. P. 5 to P. 9 are the receipts. Statement of account is El. P. 10.


(253) I have gone through the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 140 sq. ft. covered area on the 5th Floor.


(254) MS. Monika Gupta had claimed 140sq. ft. on the basisofagreementdated 25. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. l,31,862. 00 i. e. 154. 15% of the cost. The Committee had allotted 140 sq. ft. (98 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 5th Floor.


(255) MS. Monika Gupta had neither filed any suit nor had she appeared before the Court. Therefore, the claim is rejected. She shall be entitled to file a suit against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the amount paid by her.


(256) MS. Varsha Bhatia had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 30. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. l,01,835. 00 i. e. 114. 60% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 140 sq. ft. (98 sq. ft. Physial Area) in the 5th Floor in Flat No. 509-A. She had filed Suit No. 2866/92 for the relief of specific performance against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Tejwant Singh. Mr. J. L. Bhatia, husband of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. I on 30. 8. 1996. Ex, P. I is the power of attorney. Ex. P. 2 is the agreement dated 30. 7. 1984. According to the witness Exs. P. 3 to P. 16 are the receipts. According to the witness, plaintiff had paid Rs. 1,01,835. 00. The witness had stated that the plaintiff was willing to pay any amount that may be directed by this Court.


(257) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 140 sq. ft. covered area on the 5th Floor.


(258) MR. Prem Chopra had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 1. 6. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,30,000. 00 i. e. 90. 32% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 450 sq. ft. (316 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 9th Floor.


(259) MR. Prem Chopra had neither filed any suit nor had he appeared before the Court. Therefore, the claim is rejected. However, he shall be entitled to file a suit against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of amount paid by him.


(260) MRS. Neeru Jain and her daughter Ms Aaina Jain had filed Suit No. 1683/ 92 claiming the relief of specific performance with referencetoflat506-A measuring 200 sq. ft. on the 5th Floor. Mr. N. K. Jain, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second defendant, was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 2. 9. 1996. Ex. P. 1 is a power of attorney. Ex. P. 2 is the agreement dated 2. 9. 1986. Exs. P. 3 and P. 4 are the receipts. The demand letter dated 22. 11. 1986 is Ex. P. 5. Ex. P. 6 is the letter dated 20. 12. 1986. Ex. P. 7 is letter dated 22. 12. 1986 demanding Rs. 51,490. 65. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 26. 12. 1986. Ex. P. 9 is letter dated 29. 12. 1986. Ex. P. 10 is letter dated 12. 2. 1987. Ex. P. 11 is letter dated9. 3. 1987. Ex. P. 12 is letter dated 30. 3. 1987. Ex. P. 13 is receipt dated 31. 3. 1987. Ex. P. 14 is letter dated 1. 4. 1987. Ex. P. 15 is letter dated 2. 4. 1987. Ex. P. 16 is letter dated 24. 4. 1987 confirming the booking of the Flat 506-A. Ex. P. 17 is letter dated 11. 5. 1987 wherein it is stated that the first plaintiff was to pay Rs. 40,230. 65. Ex. P. 10 is the letter dated 7. 7. 1987. Ex. P. 19 is receipt dated 8. 7. 1987 and Ex. P. 20 is letter dated 6. 8. 1987. Ex. P. 21 is letter dated 26. 1 O. I 987. According to the witness, the total consideration was Rs. l,83,000. 00 out of which the plaintiffs had paid Rs. l,63,480. 00. In the cross-examination it was asked that the first receipt dated 20. 10. 1986 was issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(261) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Much cannot be made out of the fact that the first receipt was issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. From the facts it is clear that it was in the year 1986 the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had come to an arrangement for project being taken over by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff is allotted 200 sq. ft. covered area in the 5th Floor.


(262) THE claims of Ms. Anju Jain (S. No. 2426/94), Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain (S. No. 2428/94) and Mr. Vaneet Kumar Jain (S. No. 2427/94) shall be dealt with separately with the other cases.


(263) M/s. Marine Container Services, Capt. A. K. Batra, Capt. V. W. Kaatari and Capt. S. Batra had filed Suit No. 2952/96 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. , Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. , Mr. Tejwant Singh, Mrs. Surinder Kaur, Global Travels and Cargo (P) Ltd. , Parul Nisha Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kohli Estate Agency with reference to Flat Nos. 508a (1) and 508a (2) in the 5th Floor. In the alternative, the plaintiffs had claimed recovery of Rs. 50 lakhs against the defendants. Mr. Anil Kumar Sahni was examined as Public Witness. I on 20. 9. 1996. He has marked Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 dated 19. 11. 1988 and 12. 12. 1988 with reference to 508 A (l) and 508a (2) respectively. According to him, the price was Rs. l,600. 00 per sq. ft. According to the witness, a sum of Rs. 8,40,000. 00 had been paid as evidenced by receipts Exs. P. 3 to P. 5.


(264) NO further consideration of the matter is necessary because the agreements are of the year 1988 the claims cannot be considered. The plaintiffs have paid Rs. 8,40,000. 00. The claim for allotment is rejected. The claim for damages is also rejected because there is no proof of damages. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the return of the amount of Rs. 8,40,000. 00. Accordingly, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs for allotment. The plaintiffs shall be paid the sum of Rs. 8,40,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(265) MR. Har Saroop had filed Suit No. 2131/86 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the relief of specific performance claiming that Flat No. 501a in the5th Floor 700sq. ft. seeking to en force agreement dated 19. 11. 1988/21. 11. 1988. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 1,80,000/ as against the total consideration of Rs. 4,90,000. 00. Mr. Har Sarup was examined as Public Witness. I on 17. 9. 1996. He has marked Ex. P. 1 agreement dated 19. 11. 1988/21. 11. 1988. According to him, the total consideration was Rs. 4,90,000. 00 for 700 sq. ft. @ Rs. 700. 00 per sq. ft. The plaintiff had paid Rs. l,80,000. 00 as evidenced by Exs. P. 2 to P. 12. According to him, he has been put to waiting list at serial No. 4 in the Report in Annexure G.


(266) THE agreement is of the year 1988. Therefore, the claim cannot at all be considered. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. l,80,000. 00. The plaintiff shall be entitled to return of the amount. The plaintiff shall be paid the sum of Rs. l,80,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(267) M/s. JTB Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. , previously known as Parul Nisha Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. , has filed Suit No. 2203/93 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. , Marine Container Services, Mr. Pramod Khanna, Ms. Chery Aggarwla and Mr. G. Dubey for the relief of specific performance claiming Flat Nos. 508 and 508a measuring 600 sq. ft. each on the 5th Floor.


(268) MR. V. K. Malik, one of the Executive of the plaintiff Co. was examined as P. W. I on 4. 10. 1996. The power of attorney in favour of Public Witness. 1 is marked Ex. P. 1 and the resolution of the Company is marked as Ex. P. 2. According to the witness, by two separate letters Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 dated 24. 12. 1988 first defendant Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had allotted two office space bearing Nos. 501a and 502a each of an approximate covered area of 500 sq. ft. on the 5th Floor. He refers to Exs. P. 6 and P. 7 dated 14. 3. 1990. Exs. P. 8 to P. 18 are the receipts showing the payment of Rs. 10,54,000. 00. He speaks to the fact that the Flats were changed to 508 and 508a each measuring 600 sq. ft. on 18. 7. 1991. Ex. P. 19 is the true copy of the letter showing the change. According to the witness, possession of the Flats were given to the plaintiff on 11. 12. 1990. Ex. P. 20 is the letter showing the same. To show the possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had marked Exs. P. 21 to P. 31, the telegrams and letters.


(269) THE agreement is of the year 1988. The plaintiff has come forward having taken possession inl990 and in view of this, the plaintiff cannot claim any allotment in the Complex. The agreements are pending the suits instituted inl987 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. The transactions are not bonafide. The claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff had proved the payments made to the first defendant. The plaintiff shall be entitled to return of the amount. There shall be a decree dismissing the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid the sum of Rs. 10,54,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(270) AS pointedly the Committee, it had reserved extra space in the Complex. After allotments are made to agreement holders, there remain space of 4150 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor. In order to make a proper allotment, I had to consider the cases of those persons who had entered into agreement between 1977 and 1986 in the Complex between 1 st Floor and 11 th Floor. I have chosen the following for allotment of space in the 5th Floor.


(271) SHALOO Agencies had filed Suit No. 2098796 through its proprietor Mr. Nanak A. Bhatia on the basis of agreement dated 26. 9. 1986 claiming 160 sq. ft.


(272) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that Mr. Nanak A. Bhatia, Proprietor of M/s. Shaloo Agencies is entitled to allotment of 160 sq. ft. Mr. Nanak A. Bhatia is allotted 160 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(273) M/s. Global Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. had claimed 623 sq. ft. on the basis of allotment letter dated 5. 9. 1986. They had filed Suit No. 2212/96.


(274) I have perused the documents and also considered the evidence. The plaintiff is entitled to allotment of 623 sq. ft. Plaintiff is allotted 623 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(275) MRS. Ranjit Kaur had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of letter of allotment dated 15. 10. 1986. She had filed Suit No. 4491/92.


(276) I have considered the materials placed by her and I am satisfied that she is entitled to allotment. She is allotted 500 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(277) DR. (Mrs.) Sudarshan Kapur had claimed 360 sq. ft. on the basis of letter of allotment dated 22. 11. 1986. She had filed Suit No. 3689/92.


(278) I have considered the materials placed by her and I am satisfied that she is entitled to allotment. She is allotted 360 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(279) MRS. Nidhi Jain and Mrs. Abha Sonthalia had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the allotment letter dated 26. 12. 1983. They had filed Suit No. 2758/92.


(280) I have considered the materials placed by the Plaintiff and I am satisfied that they are entitled to allotment. They are allotted 500 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(281) SMT. Prem Gurcharan Singh and her son Mr. Paramjit Singh have filed Suit No. 2255/96 claiming 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 7. 1. 1985.


(282) I have perused the documents and also considered the evidence. The plaintiffs are entitled to allotment of 500 sq. ft. Plaintiffs are allotted 500 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(283) MR. D. K. Gupta has filed Suit No. 2184/96 claiming 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 24. 6. 1985.


(284) I have perused the documents and also considered the evidence. The plaintiff is entitled to allotment of 300 sq. ft. Plaintiff is allotted 300 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(285) MRS. Kamlesh Vasdev has filed Suit No. 2394/96 claiming 435 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 3. 10. 1985.


(286) I have considered the materials placed by her and I am satisfied that she is entitled to allotment. She is allotted 435 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(287) MR. G. Dubey has filed Suit No. 2537/96 claiming 325 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 27. 1. 1986.


(288) I have considered the materials placed by him and I am satisfied that he is entitled to allotment. He is allotted 325 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(289) MR. Himanshu Gupta has filed Suit No. 2706/92 claiming 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 27. 11. 1986.


(290) I have considered the materials placed by him and I am satisfied that he is entitled to allotment but he could be allotted 400 sq. ft. Accordingly, he is allotted 400 sq. ft. in the 5th Floor.


(291) 6th Floor I now take the 6th Floor for allotment.


(292) MR. Arjun Singh Gupta had claimed 550 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 26. 12. 1977. Though the Committee had noted agreement dated as 26. 12. 1977 the allotment letter is dated 28. 12. 1977. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,00,437. 00 , 122. 82% of the cost. The Committee had allotted 550 sq. ft. (385 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 603-A in the 6th Floor. Mr. Arjun Singh Gupta had filed Suit No. 1931 /96. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 12. 9. 1996. He has spoken to the agreement Ex. P. I. He has marked receipts Exs. P. 2 to P. 23. According to him, he had paid Rs. 3,00,437. 00. He has expressed his readiness and willingness to pay any further amount that this Court may direct.


(293) I have perused the documents. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Mr. Arjun Singh Gupta is allotted 550 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(294) DR. (Mrs.) Usha Sikka had claimed 550 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 28. 12. 1977. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 2,97,775. 00 , 119. 19% of the cost. The Committee had allotted 550 sq. ft. (385 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 603-B. Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Sikka had filed Suit No. 1926/96 claiming the relief of specific performance. She has examined herself as Public Witness. I on 17. 9. 1996. She has spoken to allotment letter Ex. P. I and receipts showing the payment are marked as Exs. P. 2 to P. 24. She has also expressed her read in esstopay any further amount that may be directed by this Court. According to her, she had paid Rs. 3,89,424. 50.


(295) I have per used the documents. The receipts are from ll. l. l978 to 8. 5. 1991. The first cheque was issued on 28. 12. 1977. Receipt Ex. P. 2 dated 11. 1. 1978 mentions Flat No. 603 on the 6th Floor, area 550 sq. ft. @ Rs. 335. 00 per sq. ft. The allotment letter Ex. P. 1 is dated 1. 3. 1986.


(296) I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved her claim for allotment. Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Sikka is allotted 550 sq. ft. in the 6th floor.


(297) MR. Bhim Sen Gupta had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 28. 12. 1977. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. 5,52,687. 00 , 162. 23%. The Committee had allotted 750 sq. ft. (525 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 604 in the 6th Floor. Mr. Bhim Sen Gupta had filed Suit No. 1928/96 for specific performance. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 13. 9. 1996. According to him, the Flat was booked by Ms. Nirmal Gupta. She died on 2. 2. 1982. She had left a Will and she had bequeathed the same to Public Witness. I, he being her brother. He had obtained Probate under Section 289 ofthe Indian Succession Act, 1925 in the Court of Mr. N. C. Kochhar, District Judge, Delhi (as His Lordship then was) in Probate Case No. 79/83. He speaks to the allotment letter dated 28. 12. 1977. The endorsement is marked as Ex. P. 2 by which the rights for the Flat stood transferred in his name. According to him, he had paid Rs. 5,38,500. 00. Receipts are Exs. P. 3 to P. 23.


(298) I have perused the documents. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Mr, Bhim Sen Gupta is allotted 750 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(299) MS. Priyanka Mehta had claimed 590 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 7. 1. 1978. The Committee had allotted 590 sq. ft. (413 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 601 in the 6th Floor. She had filed Suit No. 2163/96 seeking the relief of specific performance. Mr. Karan Mehta, brother of Ms. Priyanka Mehta had claimed 590 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 7. 1. 1978. The Committee had allotted 590 sq. ft. (413 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 602 in the 6th Floor. He has filed Suit No. 2162/96. Ms. Ruby Khanna had claimed 580 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 7. 1. 1978. The Committee had allotted 580 sq. ft. (406 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 607b in the 6th Floor. She had filed Suit No. 1879/96 for specific performance.


(300) ALL the three cases have to be dealt with to gether because all the three claim rights by virtue of assignment from Mr. S. P. Kapoor and Mr. K. K. Kapoor HUF who had entered into agreement for the purchase of 1760 sq. ft. on 7. 1. 1978. The allotment letter in favour of Mr. S. P. Kapoor and Mr. K. K. Kapoor HUF dated 7. 1. 1978 is marked as Ex. P. 2 in Suit No. 1879/96. Mr. Vijay Mehta, father of Ms. Priyanka and Mr. Karan Mehta examined himself as Public Witness. I in Suit Nos. 2163/96 and 2162/96. In Suit No. 1879/96 Mr. S. Khanna, husband of Mrs. Ruby Khanna was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 12. 9. 1996.


(301) I have perused the documents in all the cases and I am satisfied that all the three have proved their claims and they shall be entitled to allotment. Accordingly, Ms. Priyanka Mehta is allotted 590 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor. Mr. Karan Mehta is allotted 590 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor. Ms Ruby Khanna is allotted 580 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(302) MR. Inderjit Singh had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 9. 2. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid 114. 69% of the cost. The Committee had allotted 750 sq. ft. (525 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 605 in the 6th Floor. He has filed Suit No. 2161 /96 claiming the relief of specific performance. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 1. 10. 1996. He has spoken to the agreement dated 9. 2. 1978 and the allotment letter is marked Ex. P. I. According to him, he had paid Rs. 3,18,500. 00 and the receiptsare marked Exs. P. 2top. 33. According to him, he was given a typical floor plan of floors 2 to 10 and the same is marked as Ex. P. 34. According to him, the Flat was changed from 605 to 605a by letters dated 13. 9. 1980 and 5. 7. 1984 which are marked as Exs. P. 36 and P. 37. According to him, by letter dated 26. 9. 1989 (Ex. P. 38) assurance was given to the plaintiff. Exs. P. 39 and P. 40 are the letters by the defendant giving assurance.


(303) I have perused the documents including Ex. P. 1 the allotment letter dated 9. 2. 1978. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Accordingly, Mr. Inderjit Singh is allotted 750 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(304) MR. N. Narasimhan had claimed 550 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 22. 2. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid 116. 15%andhadallotted550 sq. ft. (385 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 606a in the 6th Floor. He had already filed a Suit No. 1189/91 before the Committee had decided the allotment. He gave evidence as Public Witness. I on 7. 8. 1996.


(305) I have perused the documents. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Mr. N. Narasimhan is allotted 550 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(306) MR. Sarabjeet Singh had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis ofagreementdated 17. 3. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid 70. 06% and had allotted 350 sq. ft. (255 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 610-B in the 6th Floor. Mr. Sarabjeet Singh and his wife Mrs. Harjeet Kaur had filed Suit No. 3620/92. He has examined himself as Public Witness. I on 14. 8. 1996. He speaks to the agreement which was in the year 1978 and the assignment in his favour on the 8th of September, 1980. He has also produced tile receipts showing the payments. The original receipt was in favour of Mr. Amarjeet Singh Johar which was on 17. 3. 1978.


(307) I have perused the documents. I am satisfied that Mr. Sarabjeet Singh and Mrs. Harjeet Kaur are entitled for allotment. They are allotted 500 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(308) MR. Anil K. Arora had claimed 424 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 11. 12. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid 89. 53% of the cost and had allotted 424 sq. ft. (297 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 6th Floor in Flat No. 606-B. He. had filed Suit No. 1935/96. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 12. 9. 1996 and he has spoken to the arrangement in 1978 for the purchase of the Flat. According to him, the agreement was for 375 sq. ft. but the Committee had noted the agreement for 424 sq. ft. No allotment letter had been filed but receipts from 1978 and the receipts are Exs. P. 2 to P. 28. It is stated by Public Witness. I that the agreement dated 25. 10. 1978 is marked as Ex. P. I. That is not a correct statement. Ex. P. 1 is onlya certificate issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. stating that the plaintiff had paid Rs. 10,000. 00 by way of cheque dated 20. 10. 1978.


(309) I have perused the documents. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 375 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(310) MR. Arvind Thirani had claimed 1000 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 13. 12. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid 112. 72% and had allotted 1000 sq. ft. (700 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 609 in the 6th Floor. Mr. Arvind Thirani and his wife Mrs. Uma Thirani had filed Suit No. 2256/96 for specific performance. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 10. 10. 1996. According to him, on 13. 12. 1978 Kasa Engineering Corporation entered into an agreement with Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. The allotment letter is marked as Ex. P. 1. He got the assignment on 17. 6. 1980 and that is marked as Ex. P. 2. According to him, he had paid Rs. 5,37,750. 00 and the receipts are Exs. P. 3 to P. 22.


(311) I have perused the documents. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Mr. Arvind Thirani and Mrs. Uma Thirani are allotted 1000 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(312) MR. Maqsudan Lal had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 26. 3. 1981. The Committee had noted that he had paid 118. 41% and had allotted 750 sq. ft. (525 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 611 in the 6th Floor. He has filed Suit No. 3115/92. He examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 16. 8. 1996. He has spoken to the agreement which is marked as Ex. P. 1 dated 26. 3. 1981 and the Flat was transferred on 25. 3. 1983 evidenced by Ex. P. 2. The payments are proved by receipts Exs. P. 3 to P. 28.


(313) I have perused the documents. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Though the plain tiff has prayed for 750 sq. ft. , his agreement being later in point of time by allotment to Mr. Arvind Thirani, whose agreement is dated 13. 12. 1978, the total area allotted comes to6795 sq. ft. and the area available is 7460 sq. ft. Therefore, Only 600 sq. ft. could be allotted to the plaintiff. Accordingly, Mr. Maqsudan Lal is allotted 600 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(314) MS. Indira Duggal had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 3. 6. 1981. The Committee had noted that she had paid 78. 98% and had allotted 395 sq. ft. (277 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1107-A in the 11th Floor. She had filed Suit No. 3297/91 for specific performance. Mr. Ravinder Lal Duggal, husband of the plaintiff was examined as Public Witness. I on 14. 8. 1996. He has spoken to the agreement and the payments made. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. l,71,000. 00 have been paid. The plaintiff is not entitled to allotment, 11th Floor has been allotted to William Jacks and Co. and when the plaintiff had entered into agreement for 6th Floor there can be no allotment in another Floor. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. l,71,000. 00. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. l,71,000. 00 from out of the pool amount.


(315) MR. Shashi Bhushan had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 9. 6. 1981. The Committee had noted that he had paid 96. 18% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 721 sq. ft. (505 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 6th Floor in Flat No. 610-C. He has filed Suit No. 2125/94. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 4. 9. 1996. He claims to be an assignee from Ms. Nirmal Gupta with reference to Flat No. 606 on the 6th Floor. I had already noted in the claim of Mr. Bhim Sen Gupta in Suit No. 1928/96, who claimed to be her brother and on the basis of Will executed by her with reference to Flat No. 605. The Committee had taken the relevant date to be 9. 6. 1981 for Mr. Shashi Bhushan. There is no space available in the 6th Floor. According to Public Witness. I he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,82,784. 55 towards the cost of the Flat and L and D. O. charges. The plaintiff is not entitled to the allotment of any Flat. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 2,82,784. 00 from out of the common pool.


(316) HINDUSTAN Oils, a partnership concern, had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 13. 6. 1981. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 2,82,074. 00 , 124. 19% of the cost. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the 11th Floor in Flat No. 1108-B. Hindustan Oils had filed Suit No. 2192/96. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, a partner of the firm was examined as Public Witness. I on 17. 9. 1996. Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 show the registration of the firm. Ex. P. 3 is the allotment letter dated 13. 6. 1981 in favour of Kaura Lal Madan Lal. The assignment was made on 16. 10. 1981 as evidenced by Ex. P. 4. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,82,074. 00 as evidenced by Exs. P. 5 to P. 17.


(317) I have perused the documents. As there is no space available in the 6th Floor, the plaintiff is not entitled to any allotment of the space. There can be no allotment to the plaintiff in any other floor,in particular in the 11th Floor which has been allotted to William Jacks and Co. , whose agreement is earlier in point of time to that of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the sum of Rs. 2,82,074. 00 from out of the common pool.


(318) MR. B. K. Singh had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 19. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that he had paid 157. 27% of the cost and the Committee had allotted 98 sq. ft. Physical Area in the 5th Floor in Flat No. 510-A. He has neither appeared before the Court nor has he filed any suit. The claim stands rejected. However, he shall be entitled to take appropriate proceedings regarding the money paid against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(319) MR. Kailash Kathuria had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 19. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that he had paid 90. 20% of the cost and the Committee had allotted 88 sq. ft. Physical Area in the 7th Floor in Flat No. 709- He has neither appeared before the Court nor has he filed any suit. The claim stands rejected. However, he shall be entitled to take appropriate proceedings regarding the money paid against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(320) SONA Enterprises had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 23. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that it had paid 94. 08% of the cost and had allotted 92 sq. ft. Physical Area in the 3rd Floor in Flat No. 305-B. Sona Enterprises had filed Suit No-3071 /96. Mr. Rajinder Saigal was examined as Public Witness. 1 on24. 1. 1997. He spoke about the agreement and according to him the plaintiff had paid Rs. 67,960. 00 towards the purchase of the Flat. There is no space available in the 6th Floor. There can be no allotment in any other floor. Plaintiff is not entitled to any allotment. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 67,960. 00 from out of the common pool.


(321) MRS. Anju Ghai had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 8. 3. 1985. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 2,54,125. 00 , 86. 55% of the cost and the Committee had allotted 303 sq. ft. Physical Area in the 11th Floor in Flat No. 1109-B. She had filed Suit No. 2991/92. She examined herself as Public Witness. I on 16. 8. 1996. Accordingtoher,shehad paid Rs. l,78,125. 00. There is no space available either in the 6th Floor or in the 11th Floor. Therefore, she will not be entitled to any allotment. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. l,78,125. 00 from out of the common pool.


(322) MRS. Sarojini Choudhary had claimed 760 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 13. 7. 1985. Thecommitteehadnotedthatshehadpaidrs. 4,89,610. 00 , 138. 90% of the cost and the Committee had allotted 760 sq. ft. (532 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1110-B in the 11th Floor. She had filed Suit No. 2086/96. Mr. Trilok Nath Sharma, power of attorney of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 19. 9. 1996. He has proved the agreement and also the payments made. According to Public Witness. 1, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 4,89,610. 00. There is no space available either in the 6th Floor or in the 11 th Floor and, therefore, she is not entitled to any allotment of space. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 4,89,610. 00 from out of the common pool.


(323) THE claim of Rajiv Mohan, HUF shall be dealt with separately.


(324) MR. Arvind Sharma had claimed 140sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 17. 8. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. l,57,557. 00 125. 60% of the cost. The Committee had allotted 98 sq. ft. Physical Area in the 7th Floor in Flat No. 709-A. Mr. Arvind Sharma has filed Suit No. 2195/96 for spedfic performance with referencetoflatno. 610-Ameasuring 140sq. ft. The allotment letter dated 17. 8. 1986 refers to 10th Floor. Mr. Arvind Sharma was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 23. 9. 1996. He has proved the agreement and also payments made. As there is no space available in the 10th Floor or in the 6th Floor, he is not entitled to allotment of space. However, he shall be entitled to the return' of the money. He shall be paid a sum of Rs. l,57,557. 00 from out of the common pool.


(325) MR. Inder Pardasani has filed Suit No. 1191 /91 for permanent injunction restraining the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. from cancelling the allotment. According to the plaintiff, one Dr. Deepak Sehgal agreed to transfer his rights on 23. 12. 1988 and Dr. Deepak Sehgal had entered into agreement earlier for purchasing 550 sq. ft. He has examined himself as Public Witness. I on 9. 9. 1996. According to him, the earlier agreement of Deepak Sehgal was on 25. 3. 1987.


(326) THE agreement being on 25. 3. 1987 nothing further need be considered. The plaintiff cannot claim any allotment or any ownership. Therefore, the claim for allotment stands rejected. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 3,65,750. 00 to the builder. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 3,65,760. 00 from out of the common pool.


(327) MR. Atam Prakash, one of the co-owners had filed Suit No. 2907/96 for specific performance claiming Flat No. 204 in the second floor measuring 1500 sq. ft. carpet area or Flat No. 304 measuring 1500 sq. ft. in the 3rd Floor and 500 sq. ft. carpet area in the 6th Floor in Flat No. 608. While dealing with his claim for allotment in the second floor, I have directed allotment of 1500 sq. ft. covered area instead of carpet area. In the 6th Floor also Mr. Atam Prakash is claiming 500 sq. ft. carpet area. Having regard to the facts that the owners are entitled to allotment, allotment has been made only to 1500 sq. ft. in the second floor. I direct allotment of 1000 sq. ft. in the 6th Floor.


(328) 7th Floor I shall now take up the allotment in the 7th Floor.


(329) MS. Usha Jain had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 24. 12. 1977. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 2,65,115. 00 , 116. 10% of the total cost and the Committee had allotted 550 sq. ft. (385 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 706-D in the 7th Floor. Ms. Usha Jain, Ms. Manjari Jain and Ms. Anjali Jain had filed Suit No. 2212/96 for specific performance. Mr. Rakesh Jain, husband of plaintiff No. 1 was examined as Public Witness. I on 10. 10. 1996. He has spoken to Ex. P. 1 which is the receipt dated 24. 12. 1977 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the payment of a sum of Rs. 27,637. 50 by Mr. Balwant Singh Garg and Mr. Anand Prakash Gupta. Their rights were transferred in favour of the plaintiffs on 23. 1. 1980. Exs. P. 21 and P. 22 are the endorsements. Ex. P. 23 is the letter dated 19. 6. 1986 wherein the Flat was changed from 803 to 703 in the 7th Floor. According to the witness, a sum of Rs. 2,65,000. 00 had been paid. Exs. P. 2 to P. 20 are the receipts showing the payments. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. They are allotted 550 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(330) MR. Iqbal Krishan Sibal got the rights from Mr. B. B. Puri and had claimed 550sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 26. 12. 1977. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 1,88,100. 00 and had thus paid 75. 29%. The Committee had allotted 414 sq. ft. (290 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 710-B in the 7th Floor. Now three. plaintiffs Smt. Krishna Kapur, Mr. D. K. Kapur and Mr. Ashwani Kapur had filed Suit No. 2902/96 for specific performance. Mr. Ashwani Kapur was examined as P. W. 1 on 11. 12. 1996. According to him, Mr. lqbal Krishan Sibal was his uncle and the assignment was obtained on 25. 9. 1980. The allotment letter dated 26. 12. 1977 is marked as Ex. P. 1. The site plan which was given alongwith the agreement is marked as Ex. P. 2. The witness has produced Ex. P. 3 showing the payment to the original agreement holder Mr. B. B. Puri. Ex. P. 5 is the document showing the second plaintiff to be the co-purchaser of the Flat and Ex. P. 6 would show the consent given by the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the inclusion of the second plaintiff as co-purchaser in the transaction. Exs. P. 7 to P. 12 show the payment of Rs. 1,88,100. 00.


(331) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Smt. Krishna Kapur, Mr. D. K. Kapur and Mr. Ashwani Kapur are allotted 550 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(332) MRS. Veena Bajaj had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the strength of agreement dated 9. 2. 1978. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 3,99,000. 00 and had thus paid 120. 19% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 750 sq. ft. (525 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 701 in the 7th Floor. Mrs. Veena Bajaj had filed Suit No. 815/91 against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for specific performance. Mr. O. P. Bajaj, husband of the plaintiff was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 6. 8. 1996. He has produced Ex. P. 1 dated 9. 2. 1978. Ex. P. 2 is the statement showing payment. Exs. P. 3 to P. 26 are the receipts showing the payments. Ex. P. 27 is the telegram from the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. demanding Rs. 2. 750. 00 by the plaintiff.


(333) I have perused the' documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 750 sq. ft. in the


(334) 7th Floor. Mr. O. P. Bajaj had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 9. 2. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,72,250. 00,78. 78% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 591 sq. ft. (414 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 712 in the 7th Floor. Mr. O. P. Bajaj, father of Ms. Shalini Bajaj, Ms. Vandana Bajaj and Mr. Dinesh Bajaj had filed the Suit No. 813/91 for specific performance. Mr. O. P. Bajaj examined himself as Public Witness. I on 6. 8. 1996. He would prove Ex. P. 1 the agreement dated 9. 2. 1978. He would also speak to the fact that a sum of Rs. 3,99,000. 00 is marked as Ex. P. 2. Receipts are Exs. P. 3 to P. 25. The telegram demanding a sum of Rs. 2,750. 00 is marked as Exs. P. 6 and P. 27 is a photo copy of the cheque showing the payment of Rs. 2,750. 00.


(335) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that Mr. O. P. Bajaj has proved the claim for allotment by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are allotted 750 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(336) MR. Vipin Kapoor had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 14. 2. 1978. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. 4,39,500. 00 and thus had paid 122. 59% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 750 sq. ft. (525 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 704 in the 7th Floor. Mr. Vipin Kapoor had filed Suit No. 2286/96 for specific performance. His father Mr. J. L. Kapoor was examined asp. W. 1 on 4. 10. 1996. He has stated that on l4. 2. 1978 Mr. Surjit Singh had entered into agreement for the purchase of Flat No. 706 on the 7th Floor measuring 750 sq. ft. @ Rs. 360. 00 per sq. ft. The allotment letter is marked as Ex. P. I. The rights were assigned in favour of the plaintiff on 25. 8. 1996. The endorsement is Ex. P. 2 and the transfer letter is Ex. P. 3. The total consideration was Rs. 2,70,000. 00. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 4,39,000. 00. The receipts are marked Exs. P. 4top. 21. Ex. P. 22 is the claim filed before the Committee.


(337) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 750 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(338) MRS. Pratibha Mukhi had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 6. 2. 1980. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 2,75,875. 00 , 118. 98% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 711a in the 7th Floor. She had filed Suit No. 2269/96 for specific performance. The power of attorney of the plaintiff Mr. 0m Prakash Mukhi was examined as Public Witness. I on 4. 10. 1996. Ex. P. 2 is the allotment letter dated 6. 2. 1980 in favour of the plaintiff. According to the witness, a sum of Rs. 2,75,875. 00 had been paid. The receipts are Exs. P. 3 to P. 8. The statement of account is marked as Ex. P. 9.


(339) I have considered the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 500 sq. ft. in the


(340) 7th Floor. M/s. Virender Bahri and Sons (HUF) had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 23. 5. 1980. The Committee had noted that Mr. Bahri had paid Rs. 3,20,304. 00 , 128. 20% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 550 sq. ft. (385 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 711-B in the 7th Floor. M/s. Virender Bahri and Sons (HUF) had filed Suit No. 3752/92 for specific performance. Mr. Virender Bahri examined himself as Public Witness. I on 29. ,8. 1996. He has given evidence as the Karta of the HUF. The Flat No. 704 on the 7th Floor was agreed to be sold to Smt. Pratibha Devi and Mr. Prem Kumar Gupta. They had paid a sum of Rs. 27,637. 50 as earnest money to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. as evidenced by Ex. P. 1. They assigned their rights in favour of Everest Construction on 23. 5. 1980. Everest Construction Co. assigned its rights to Mr. Balbir Khurana and Mrs. Surjit Khurana on 28. 2. 1981. The date of transfer in favour of Everest Construction Co. is not clear. Ex. P. 2 is a receipt for the payment of Rs. l,32,000. 00 given by Mr. Balbir Khurana and Mrs. Surjit Khurana and Mr. Balbir Khurana and Mrs. Surjit Khurana to Virender Bahri and Sons (HUF). Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 8. 3. 1983 issued to the plaintiff. Exs. P. 4 to P. 23 are also the receipts.


(341) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. He is allotted 550 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(342) MR. Kiran Kamal Bhasin had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 20. 6. 1980. The Committee had noted that he had paid a sum of Rs. l,95,000. 00 , 80. 79% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 404 sq. ft. (283 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 706-B in the 7th Floor. Mr. Kiran Kamal Bhasin had filed Suit No. 1804/92 for specific performance. Mr. K. K. Bhasin examined himself as P. W. 1 on 20. 8. 1996. According to him, Mrs. Kiran Suri and Mr. Kamal Bhusan were allotted space on20. 6. 1980. Ex. P. I is the allotment letter issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. which mentions covered area of 500 sq. ft. in the 7th floor in Flat No. 708-A. The rights of Ms Kiran Suri were assigned to the plaintiff on 19. 6. 1991 as evidenced by Ex. P. 2. According to the witness. Rs. l,95,000. 00 had been paid. Exs. P. 3 to P. 6 are the receipts. Ex. P. 7 is the letter dated 27. 12. 1977 showing the payment of Rs. 30,000. 00. According to him, the Committee had wrongly stated that he had paid 80. 79% whereas 95% of die total consideration had been paid. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 25. 2. 1987 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the receipt of cheque for Rs. 50,000. 00. Ex. P. 4 is the receipt dated 25. 2. 1987 for the payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 by way of cheque dated 25. 2. 1987. Ex. P. 5 is the receipt dated 25. 2. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 24. 2. 1987 for a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 25. 2. 1987 for issue of cheque dated 24. 2. 1987 for a sum of Rs. 35,000. 00. Ex. P. 7 is the letter dated 27. 2. 1977 from Ms. Kiran Suri and Mr. Kamal Bhasin to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. stating that they are interested in purchasing a Flat in the Complex in the 7th Floor @ Rs. 365. 00 per sq. ft. for an area of 500 sq. ft.


(343) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that Mr. Kiran Kamal Bhasin had made out a case for allotment. He is allotted 500 sq. ft. in the


(344) 7th Floor. Mr. V. Kaira and others had claimed 400 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 5. 3. 1981. The Committee had noted that they had paid Rs. 3,05,200. 00 , 166. 97% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 400 sq. ft. (280 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 707-B. They have not filed any suit and they have also not appeared before the Court. Therefore, their claim stands rejected and they are at liberty to proceed against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the amount alleged to have been. paid by them.


(345) MRS. Indu Grover had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 17. 3. 1981. The Committee had noted that she had been paid Rs. 3,54,760. 00 , 96. 07% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 721 sq. ft. (505 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 705. She had filed Suit No. 1576/92 for specific performance. Mr. R. N. Grover, the husband of the plaintiff was examined as Public Witness. I on 14. 8. 1996. According to him, on 17. 3. 1981 one Chander Prakash was allotted 750 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor. Ex. P. I is the allotment letter. Ex. P. 2 is the endorsement showing the assignment of the rights in favour of the plaintiff on 2. 2. 1989. According to the witness, the total cost was Rs. 2,81,250. 00 and the plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,67,187. 50 as evidenced by Exs. P. 3 to P0. 20. According to the witness, a sum of Rs. 87. 540. 00 was also paid.


(346) EX. P. I is the allotment letter dated 7. 3. 1981 in favour of Mr. Chander Prakash. Ex. P. 2 shows the end orsement of the assignment dated 13. 7. 1981 in favour of Jaimor Ltd. as per letter dated 13. 7. 1981 by Mr. Chander Prakash Sharma. There is also an endorsement dated 21. 10. 1983 which shows the assignment in favour of Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra and on the basis of letter dated 21. 10. 1983 by Jaimor Limited. There is another endorsement dated 2. 2. 1989 in favour of the plaintiff. The endorsement reads as under:


"all rights, title and interest in respect of Flat No. 707 at 22 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, together with deposit are transferred in favour of Mrs.-Indu Grover w/o Mr. R. N. Grover, r/o S-562, Greater Kailash -I, New Delhi, as per enclosed letter dated 2nd February, 1989. "


This endorsement is by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. It is not stated that who had issued the letter dated 2. 2. 1989. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 3. 1. 1978 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Satish Kumar Arora acknowledging the receipt of the cheque dated 29. 12. 1977. The receipt mentions the amount Rs. 30,550. 00 for Flat No. 707 on the 7th Floor. Ex. P. 4 is the receipt dated 14. 5. 1979 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mrs. Mohinder Jaspal Singh and Mrs. Sukriti Kumari for Rs. 11,637. 50. Ex. P. 5 is the receipt dated 15. 3. 1980 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mrs. Mohinder Jaspal Singh and Mrs. Sukriti Kumari in respect of the cheque dated 5. 2. 1980 for Rs. 28,125. 00. Ex. P. 6 is the receipt dated 30. 9. 1981 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Jaimor Limited for the cheque for Rs. 28,125. 00 dated 23. 9. 1981. Ex. P. 7 is the receipt dated 4. 7. 1983 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Jaimor Limited for the cheque for Rs. 28,125. 00 dated 1. 1. 1983. Ex. P. 8 is the receipt dated 30. 1. 1984 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 14,062. 50 dated 1. 2. 1984. Ex. P. 9 is the receipt dated 15. 6. 1984 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 14,062. 50 dated 15. 6. 1984. Ex. P. 10 is the receipt dated 15. 12. 1984 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra for the cheque fur Rs. 14,062. 50 dated 15. 12. 1984. Ex. P. 11 is the receipt dated 1. 3. 1985 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkurn Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 14,062. 50 dated 1. 3. 1985. Ex. P. 12 is the receipt dated 14. 5. 1985 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kurnkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 14,062. 50 dated 14. 5. 1985. Ex. P. 13 is the receipt dated 5. 8. 1985 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 14,063. 00 dated 3. 8. 1985. Ex. P. 14 is the receipt dated 25. 11. 1985 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 14,062. 50dated 23. 11. 1985. Ex. P. 15 is the receipt dated 22. 11. 1986 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 14,062. 50dated 22. 11. 1986. Ex. P. 16 is the receipt dated 18. 4. 1987 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 19. 300. 00 dated 10. 3. 1987. Ex. P. 17 is the receipt dated 8. 5. 1981 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Chander Prakash Sharma for the receipt of the cheque dated 7. 5. 1981 for Rs. 55. 500. 00. Ex. P. 18 is the receipt dated 6. 7. 1987 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 14,062. 50 dated 4. 7. 1987. Ex. P. 19 is the receipt dated 13. 10. 1987 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kurnkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 6 750. 00 dated 12. 10. 1987. Ex. P. 20is the receipt dated 25. 10. 1988 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Sunil Chopra and Mrs. Kumkum Chopra for the cheque for Rs. 20,000. 00 dated 25. 10. 1988.


(347) THE witness Mr. R. N. Grover has not explained as to how he has filed Ex. P. 3 dated 3. 1. 1978 issued to Mr. Satish Kumar Arora who had issued the cheque on 29. 12. 1977. He has also not explained Ex. P. 4 the receipt dated 14. 5. 1979 issued to Mrs. Mohinder Jaspal Singh and Mrs. Sukriti Kumari. He has also not explained receipt Ex. P. 5 dated 15. 3. 1980 issued to the same persons as have been in Ex. P. 4. The witness has also not explained as to how M/s. Jaimor Limited got the assignment. The plaintiff had also not examined Mr. Sunil Chopra or Mrs. Kumkum Chopra. Under these circumstances, I am not able to say that the plaintiff has proved her case for allotment. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be allotted any space in the Complex. According to the witness, the plaintiff has paid a sum ofrs. 3,54,675. 00. That is not disputed. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 3,54,675. 00 from out of the common pool.


(348) MR. Rahul Gupta had claimed 400 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 5. 10. 1981. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,25,699. 00 , 165. 41%ofthe total cost. The Committee had allotted 400 sq. ft. (280 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 708-B. Mr. Rahul Gupta has filed Suit No. 1873/96. He examined his father Mr. D. D. Gupta on 19. 9. 1996. He speaks to the fact that there was power of attorney marked Ex. P. I. According to him, the plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 2. 7. 1978. The agreement is marked as Ex. P. 2. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 31,762. 00. The receipt dated 17. 2. 1978 is marked as Ex. P. 3. According to him, a sum of Rs. 1,987. 50 was paid on 19. 4. 1987 as evidenced by Ex. P. 4. According to him, a sum of Rs. 22. 500. 00 was paid on 5. 3. 1990 as evidenced by Ex. P. 5. By letter dated 5. 10. 1991 Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. wanted to change the space and that letter is marked Ex. P. 6. On 5. 10. 1981 there was a fresh allotment letter that is marked as Ex. P. 7. The receipts of payments are Exs. P. 8 to P. 23. The defendant made a demand on 26. 11. 1989 for Rs. 92,000. 00 and that letter is marked Ex. P. 24. The receipt for payment of the amount is dated 22. 1. 1990 marked as Ex. P. 25. The defendant wrote a letter dated 4. 12. 1990 which is marked as Ex. P. 26. He speaks to Ex. P. 28 dated 10. 9. 1993 from the defendant giving space on the 9th Floor.


(349) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Mr. Rahul Gupta is allotted 400 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(350) MR. Vinod Kapur had claimed 550 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 6. 11. 1981. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 2,23,575. 00 , 88. 56% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 487 sq. ft. (341 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 709-C. Mr. Vinod Kapur and his wife Mrs. Shalini Kapur had filed Suit No. 693/91 for injunction and rendition of accounts. Mr. Vinod Kapur examined himself as Public Witness. I on 16. 9. 1996. He speaks to the allotment dated 6. 11. 1981 which is marked as Ex. P. I. He had paid a sum of Rs. 2,23,575. 00 as evidenced by Exs. P. 2 to P. 12. Statement of account is Ex. P. 13. The witness undertook to pay deficiency in Court fee for the relief of specific performance within three days and that was also paid.


(351) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. The plaintiffs are allotted 550 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(352) MR. Harjeender Singh Lamba had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 23. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 98,450. 00 , 110. 79% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 140 sq. ft. (98 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 709-D. Col. H. S. Lamba and Mr. A. P. Singh had filed Suit No. 2215/96 for specific performance. Mr. Gurbachan Singh, attorney of the first plaintiff, examined himself as Public Witness. I on 1. 10. 1996. The power of attorney is marked as Ex. P. I. The allotment letter dated 19. 7. 1984 in favour of Mr. Jagdish Khurana is Ex. P. 2 and the transfer letter is Ex. P. 3. The endorsement on the letter of allotment is Ex. P. 2a. The receipts are Exs. P. 4 to P. 6.


(353) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Plaintiffs are allotted 140 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(354) M/s. Sona Enterprises, a partnership firm, had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 23. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 67,960. 00 , 94. 08% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 132 sq. ft. (90 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 305-B in the Third Floor. M/s. Sona Enterprises had filed Suit No. 3070/96 for specific performance. Mr. Rajinder Saigal was examined as P. W. I on 24. 1. 1997. Receipts Exs. P. 1 top. 8 have been marked. Ex. P. 2 is receipt dated 23. 4. 1985 for the issue of cheque No. 20927. 8 dated 22. 4. 1985. Ex. P. 3 is also another copy of Ex. P. 2. The plaintiff Sona Enterprises had entered into an agreement for the purchase of 140 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor also.


(355) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 140 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(356) MR. Amarjit Singh, Mrs. Satnam Kaur, Mrs. Budhwanti, Mrs. Savinder Kaur, Mr. Tarandeep Singh and Ms. Harleen Kaur had filed Suit No. 2354/96 for specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 6. 3. 1978 for 550 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor. Mr. Amarjit Singh was examined as Public Witness. I on 7. 10. 1996. According to P. W. 1 the allotment letter was on 6. 3. 1978 to Amarjit Singh and others. Payments have been made towards the Flat as evidenced by receipts Exs. P. 3 to P. 19. In Ex. P. 20 dated 12. 3. 1991 Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had confirmed that it had received full payment from the plaintiffs. Ex. P. 21 is the site plan. Ex. P. 22 is the letter dated 25. 3. 1991 from Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Amarjit Singh changing the Flat from 7th Floor to 6th Floor. Exs. P. 23 and P. 24 are letters which are not relevant.


(357) THE Committee had allotted Flat No. 607a in the 6th Floor as could be seen from item No. 601 in Annexure 1. The Committee ought to have gone by letter of allotment which is only for the 7th Floor and not by the change effected by the builder. Therefore, the claim for allotment to Amarjit Singh and others should be considered only for the 7th Floor.


(358) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for the allotment. The plaintiffs are allotted 550 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor.


(359) M/s. G. S. T. Corporation, a proprietory concern of Mr. R. N. Grover, had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 15. 5. 1985. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 2,36,325. 00 , 108. 21% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 710-A in the 7th Floor. Mr. R. N. Grover had filed Suit No. 1573/92 for specific performance. Mr. R. N. Grover examined himself as Public Witness. I on 14. 8. 1996. He speaks to Ex. P. I agreement and has produced' receipts Exs. P. 2 to P. 10. No space available for allotment. Therefore, claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 2,36,325. 00 from out of the common pool.


(360) MR. Rajat Ghai had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 1. 6. 1985. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,63,375. 00 , 114. 49% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 708-A. Mr. Rajat Ghai had filed Suit No. 2993/92. Mr. M. B. Pande, power of attorney of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. I on 16. 8. 1996. Ex. P. 1 is the power of attorney. Ex. P. 2 is the allotment letter dated 1. 6. 1985. Receipts are marked Exs. P. 3 to P. 13.


(361) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment but no space is available after allotment to the persons who entered into agreements earlier. The Committee had noted that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 3,63,375. 00 but as per receipts Exs. P. 3 to P. 13 the plaintiff had paid Rs. 3,76,500. 00. The plaintiff shall be paid the sum of Rs. 3,76,500. 00 from out of the common pool.


(362) MS. Pushpa devi had claimed 760 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 19. 6. 1985. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 3,26,990. 00 , 87. 40% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 664 sq. ft. (465 sq. ft. Physical Area). She had not filed any suit nor had she appeared. Therefore, the claim stands rejected. She is at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the amount.


(363) THE case of Mr. Rajiv Gupta, who has claimed 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 1. 9. 1986 will be dealt with separately.


(364) MRS. Usha Chopra had claimed 225 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 30. 10. 1986. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 2,35,605. 00 ,96. 42%ofthe cost. The Committee had allotted 278 sq. ft. (152 sq. ft. Physical Area). She had filed Suit No. 2605/96. She examined herself as Public Witness. I on 13. 11. 1996. She speaks to the allotment letter Ex. P. 1dated 30. 10. 1986. She speaks to the receipts Exs. P. 2 to P. 4. Ex. P. 5 and P. 6 are letters.


(365) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment but no allotment could be made because there is no space. Therefore, claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 2,35,605. 00 from out of the common pool.


(366) MR. 0m Prakash Chaudhary had filed Suit No. 1727/91 or the relief of permanent injunction with reference to his rights in the Flat in the 10th Floor while the allotment letter dated 16. 10. 1978 refers to 7th Floor. But whatever the case may be he had not appeared to give evidence to prove his case. The claim stands rejected. However, he shall be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings against the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the amount due from these two Companies.


(367) MS. Anubha Pahwa had claimed Flat on the basis of agreement dated 30. 4. 1988 in the 7th Floor by way of filing Suit No. 1819/92 claiming the relief of specific performance. She examined herself on 22. 8. 1996.


(368) I need not deal with the matter any further because the agreement is of the year 1988. According to Public Witness. 1a sum of Rs. 3,35,000. 00 had been paid. In view of this, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 3,35,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(369) MR. R. K. Arora had claimed 500 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor on the basis of agreement dated 2. 8. 1990 by filing Suit No. 3912/92 for a declaration and perpetual injunction. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 22. 8. 1996. According to him, he had paid Rs. 3,50,000. 00 as evidenced by Exs. P. 2 to P. 5. He has also paid Court fee for the relief of specific performance.


(370) IN view of the fact that the agreement is of the year 1990,1 need not discuss any further. The claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. 3,50,000. 00 by him to the defendant. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The sum of Rs. 3,50,000. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(371) MR. K. D. Mehra alongwith Mr. Bharat Mehra had claimed 500 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor on the basis of agreement dated 2. 8. 1990 by filing Suit No. 2092 /96 for declaration and specific performance. Mr. K. D. Mehra examined himself as Public Witness. 1on 23. 9. 1996. According to him, he had paid Rs. 2,50,000. 00.


(372) INVIEW of the fact hat the agreement is of the year 1990,1 need not discuss any further. The claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 paid to the defendant. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(373) M/s. Mahesh Metal Works by sole proprietrix Mrs. Bimla Devi, had claimed 700 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor on the basis of agreement dated 19. 10. 1988 by filing Suit No. 2133/96. Mrs. Bimla Devi examined herself as Public Witness. 1on 17. 9. 1996.


(374) INVIEW of the fact that the agreement is of the year 1988,1 need not discuss any further. The claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 paid to the defendant. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(375) MR. S. C. K. Bajaj had claimed 350 sq. ft. in the 7th Floor on the basis of agreement dated 5. 2. 1988 by filing Suit No. 2194/96 for specific performance. He examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 17. 9. 1996.


(376) IN view of the fact that the agreement is of the year 1988,1 need not discuss any further. The claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 paid to the defendant. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(377) 8th and 9th Floors I shall now take up 8th and 9th Floors allotments as the Committee had dealt with them together.


(378) THE Committee had allotted Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. 16,340 sq. ft. (11438 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat Nos. 801 to 812,901 to 906 and 911 on the basis of agreement dated 3. 1. 1978. I shall deal with it after I deal with other allotments.


(379) PUNJAB and Sind Bank had claimed the montage of the same property booked by Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. I shall deal with the claim of Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. when I deal with the claim of Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd.


(380) MR. Sameer Arora had claimed 502 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 27. 1. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 4,51,375. 00,90. 73% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 455 sq. ft. (319 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 910-B in the 9th Floor. Mr. Sameer Arora alongwith Me. Shitij Arora, Baby Prathana Gulati and Ms. Saran Kohli had filed Suit No. 2457/92 for specific performance. He examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 16. 8. 1996. According to him, he booked space on 27. 1. 1986. The total consideration as per the agreement was Rs. 4,69,108. 00. The allotment letter is marked as Ex. P. 1. The receipts showing the payment are Exs. P. 2 to P. 21. The statement of account is marked as Ex. P. 22.


(381) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Plaintiffs are allotted 502 sq. ft. on the 8th Floor.


(382) MR. Lal Chand Chimnani had claimed 514 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 3. 2. 1986 in the 8th Floor. The Committee had noted that he had. paid Rs. 4,02,867. 00 , 97. 85% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 503 sq. ft. (352 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 909-B in the 9th Floor. Mr. Lal Chand Chimnani had filed Suit No. 2812/96 for the relief of specific performance. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 22. 1. 1997. He has spoken to agreement Ex. P. I dated 1. 2. 1986. According to him. Rs. 3,59,800. 00 as evidenced by receipts Exs. P. 2 to P. 15 had been paid. Ex. P. 16 is the Bank certificate dated 11. 10. 1996. According to him, he had paid money in full.


(383) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 514 sq. ft. on the 8th Floor.


(384) MRS. Ritika Gambhir, Mrs. Meeta Gupta and M/s. Anand Brothers (HUF) had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 26. 9. 1986 in the 8th Floor. The Committee had noted that they had paid Rs. l,33,896. 00 , 103. 88% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 140 sq. ft. (98 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 908- in the 9th floor. Mrs. Ritika Gambir, Mrs. Meeta Gupta and M/s. Anand Brothers (HUF) through its Karta Mr. Manohar Lal Chawla, had filed Suit No. 2084/96 for specific performance. Mrs. Ritika Gambhir examined herself as Public Witness. I on 19. 9. 1986. She speaks to the allotment letter Ex. P. 1 on 26. 9. 1986. According to her, agreement was executed on 12. 5. 1987. The plaintiffs have also agreed to purchase Car Parking Space bearing No. 34 and had paid a sum of Rs. 12,000. 00. The receipt showing the payment is marked Ex. P. 3. The balance for the Car Parking Space is to be paid on 23. 2. 1987. That amount was paid on that date as evidenced by Ex. P. 4. For the purchase of the Flat, the plaintiffs had paid Rs. l,33,896. 00.


(385) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. The plaintiffs are allotted 140 sq. ft. in the 8th Floor. Regarding Car Parking space, it shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage.


(386) MR. N. K. Arora had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 30. 7. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. l,21,142. 00 , 96. 57% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 135 sq. ft. (95 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 908-B in the 9th Floor. He had neither filed any suit nor had he appeared before Court. Therefore, the claim stands rejected. He shall be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings for the recovery of the amount paid by him against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(387) MRS. Kalpana Singhal had claimed 225 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 30. 7. 1986 in the 8th Floor. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 2,08,797. 00 , 93. 64% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 211 sq. ft. (148 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 909a in the 9th Floor. Mrs. Kalapna and Mrs. Shakuntala had filed Suit No. 2204/96 for specific performance. Alongwith the plaint, the allotment letter dated 30. 7. 1986 in favour of Mrs. Kalpana and Mrs. Shakuntala is filed. Neither Mrs. Kalapna nor Mrs. Shakuntala has come forward to substantiate their claim. Their claim for allotment stands rejected. They shall be at liberty to institute proceedings for the recovery of the amount due.


(388) MRS. Indu Anand had claimed 525 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 4. 8. 1986. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 2,66,790. 00 , 69. 55% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 365 sq. ft. (256 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 909-C in the 9th Floor. Mrs. Indu Anand had filed two suits No. 2465/96 and 2466 /96. In Suit No. 2465 / 96 she had claimed the relief of specific performance with reference to 300 sq. ft. in the 9th Floor. She examined herself as Public Witness. I on 9. 10. 1996. She has filed the allotment letter dated 4. 8. 1986 Ex. P. I. To show the payments Exs. P. 2 to P. 5 have been marked. The letter dated 18. 7. 1986 from the defendant confirming the allotment is marked Ex. P. 6. She also speaks to her booking of another area of 225. sq. ft. in Flat No. 906-B. The representation before the Committee is marked by her as Ex. P. 7. She has filed objection petition I. A. 1502/95 as that is marked as Ex. P. 8. According to her, she had paid Rs. 2,35,720. 00.


(389) IN Suit No. 2466/96 she had claimed specific performance with reference to 225 sq. ft. in Flat No. 906-B on the 9th Floor. She examined herself as Public Witness. 1 in this case also on the same date. She has spoken to allotment letter dated 4. 8. 1996 Ex. P. 1. According to her, she had paid Rs. 31,790. 00 as against the total consideration of Rs. 1157500. 00. The receipts are Exs. P. 2 and P. 3. The letter from the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. dated 18. 7. 1987 is marked Ex. P. 4. She has also spoken to her booking Flat No. 911a, subject matter of other suit.


(390) I have perused the documents in both the suits. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment of 525 sq. ft. in the 9th Floor. She is allotted 525 sq. ft. in the 9th Floor.


(391) MR. Rajiv Gupta had claimed 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 1. 9. 1986 and that shall be dealt with separately.


(392) MR. Manjit Singh Rikhy and Mr. Malvinder Singh Rikhy had filed Suit No. 1087/92 for specific performance and mandatory injunction on the basis of agreement dated 4. 4. 1989 with reference to a Flat in the 8th Floor. Mr. Malvinder Singh Rikhy was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 8. 8. 1996.


(393) THE allotment letter Ex. P. 1 is dated 4. 4. 1989. The agreement being of the year 1989, the allotment cannot be considered. Therefore, the claim for allotment stands rejected. The plaintiff shall be paid the sum of Rs. l,90,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(394) MRS. Rupinder Kumari had filed Suit No. 1918/91 for injunction with reference to Flat No. 811a in the 8th Floor by virtue of agreement dated 6. 8. 1986. Mr. Kanwarjeet Singh Dhillon, husband of the plaintiff was examined as Public Witness. I on 11. 9. 1996. He would state that the allotment letter was on 6. 8. 1986. The letter of allotment is Ex. , P. 2 for 300 sq. ft. in the 8th Floor. According to him, a sum of Rs. 2,75,310. 00 had been paid and receipts are Exs. P. 3 and P. 4. By letter dated 11. 12. 1990 the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. permitted the plaintiff to do interior decoration and that is marked as Ex. P. 6. According to him, there was a public notice in the newspaper on 13. 6. 1991 wherein the third defendant Mr. K. J. Arora claimed 811a to be his, that is marked Ex. P. 7. Ex. P. I is the power of attorney. Ex. P. 2 is the letter of allotment dated 6. 8. 1986. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 14. 11. 1986 for the payment of Rs. 92,000. 00. Ex. P. 4 is the receipt dated 11. 8. 1988 for the payment of Rs. 15,390. 00. The plaintiff had amended her plaint and had paid Court fee for specific performance.


(395) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 300 sq. ft. in the 8th Floor.


(396) MRS. Bimla Rani had claimed the relief of specific performance by filing Suit No. 2569/96 on the basis of agreement dated 7. 9. 1990, which is the allotment letter in favour of Mr. A. R. Shining Foundary and Engineering Works, of which she is the proprietrix. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, son of the plaintiff was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 11. 12. 1996. She claimed allotment in the 8th Floor. He speaks about the allotment letter and according to him a sum of Rs. 2,56,000. 00 had been paid out of the total consideration of Rs. 2,96,400. 00.


(397) THE allotment of the year 1990 cannot at all be considered. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. 2,56,000. 00. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2,56,000. 00 out of the common pool.


(398) MR. K. J. Arora, who is third defendant in Suit No. 1918/91, had filed Suit No. 1831/91 claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to 960 sq. ft. in Flat No. 811-Ain the 8th Floor on the basis of agreement dated 15. 9. 1990. Mr. K. J. Arora examined himself as Public Witness. I on 18. 9. 1996. He speaks to the agreement dated 15. 9. 1990. According to him, he had paid Rs. 45. 000. 00. Receipts are Exs. P. 2 and P. 3.


(399) THE allotment of the year 1990 cannot at all be considered. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. 45,000. 00. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid a sum of Rs. 45,000. 00 out of the common pool.


(400) MR. Jagdish Prasad has filed Suit No. 1789/92 for specific performance with reference to Flat No. 804 in the 8th Floor measuring 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 8. 2. 1988. Mr. Jagdish Prasad examined himself as Public Witness. I on 16. 8. 1996. According to him, the allotment letter was on 8. 2. 1988. The total considerable payable was Rs. 1,80,000. 00. He had paid Rs. 2,21,000. 00. According to him, on 5. 12. 1986 a sum of Rs. 9,000. 00 was paid vide receipt Ex. P. 2. On 8. 2. 1988 Rs. 10,000. 00 was paid (Ex. P. 3). On 11. 7. 1988 Rs. 37,000. 00 was paid (Ex. P. 4). On 21. 6. 1990rs. l2,000. 00 waspaid (Ex. P. 5). On8. 2. 1988rs. 70,000. 00 waspaid (Ex. P. 6). On 23. 9. 1988 Rs. 33,000. 00 was paid (Ex. P. 7) and on 17. 9. 1990 Rs. 50,000. 00 was paid (Ex. P. 8).


(401) EX. P. I is the allotment letter dated 8. 2. 1988. Ex. P. 2 is the receipt dated 5. 12. 1986 for a sum of Rs. 9,000. 00 in cash.


(402) I have perused the documents. The plaintiff had really arranged to purchase a Flat in 1986.


(403) I am satisfied that the date of agreement should be reckoned as 5. 12. 1986 and the plaintiff is entitled to the allotment of 300 sq. ft. in the 8th Floor. Accordingly, plaintiff is allotted 300 sq. ft. in the 8th Floor.


(404) M/s. Solan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 3840/92 claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to Flat No. 905-C in the 9th Floor measuring 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 25. 9. 1987. Mr. Sukhjinder Singh Sangha, Director of M/s. Surjit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. was examined as Public Witness. I on 22. 8. 1996. He is a Director in the plaintiff Co. The resolution passed by the Company to give evidence is marked as Ex. P. 1. The certificate of Registration is Ex. P. 2. According to Public Witness. 1 on 25. 9. 1987 the plaintiff Co. booked a Flat in Flat No. 905- in the 9th Floor. The allotment letter is marked as Ex. P. 3 which refers to the area of 500 sq. ft. and the rate is Rs. l,000. 00 per sq. ft. According to the witness, the Company had paid Rs. 6,10,000. 00 as evidenced by the receipts Ex. P. 4 to P. 9. Under Ex. P. 10. dated 16. 10. 1991 the Company had issued letter a cknowledging the full and final payment. The plaintiff Co. received statement of account Ex. P. 11.


(405) EX. P. 3 allotment letter mentions only 10th Floor. Ex. P. 4 receipt dated 3. 3. 1990 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 by way of cheque in respect of 10th Floor. Ex. P. 5 receipt dated 29. 6. 1990 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 by way of cheque in respect of 10th Floor. Ex. P. 6 receipt dated 9. 7. 1990 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the sum ofrs. 25,000. 00 bywayofcashinrespectoflothfloor. Ex. P. 7recciptdated9. 11. 1990 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the sum of Rs. 35,000. 00 by way of cash in respect of 10th Floor. Ex. P. 8 receipt dated 16. 2. 1991 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the sum of Rs. 95,000. 00 by way of cheque in respect of 9th Floor. Ex. P. 9 receipt dated 16. 2. 1991 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the sum of Rs. 15,700. 00 by way of cash in respect of 9th Floor. Ex. P. IO is letter dated 16. 2. 1991 wherein the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had stated that it had received full and final payment against the amount payable for the Flat. Ex. P. 11 is the statement of account by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. where in it is mentioned that a sum of Rs. 5,10,000. 00 had been paid and Rs. l,10,000. 00 was due.


(406) THE documents filed by the plaintiff show that the transaction have been brought into existence for the purpose of claiming allotment and I am not at all satisfied with the genuineness of the transaction. The plaintiff cannot claim any allotment on the basis of Ex. P. 3 which does not appear to me to have come into existence in the normal course of business. The payments were made in 1990. The first payment being on 3. 3. 1990, after the order was passed by this Court on 6. 2. 1990. Therefore, the claim for allotment to the plaintiff is rejected. However,the plaintiff shall be entitled to the return of the amount. Receipts Exs. P. 4 to P. 9 show that a total sum of Rs. 2,20,700. 00 was paid by the plaintiff. According to Public Witness. I a sum of Rs. 6,10,000. 00 was paid by the plaintiff Co. and the same is not disputed by the defendants. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion to pay the amount from out of the common pool. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the suit for specific performance and injunction and directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 6,10,000. 00 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.


(407) MR. Satya Narain Gupta had filed Suit No. 3413/92 for specific performance with reference to Flat No. 906 in the 9th Floor on the basis of agreement dated 25. 9. 1987. Mr. Satya Narain Gupta was examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on20. 8. 1996. He has filed affidavit by way of evidence and that is treated as examination-in-chief. In addition to that, he speaks to Ex. P. I the original allotment letter dated 25. 9. 1987. Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 are the receipts showing the payment. Ex. P. 5 is the assessment order dated 9. 2. 1993. Exs. P. 6andp. 7aretheattested copies of the assessment order. Ex. PA is the balance sheet as on 22. 11. 1990. Ex. PB is a receipt dated 16. 7. 1991 showing the payment of Rs. I lakh in cash.


(408) MR. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyers Association crossexamined the witness. Receipts are marked X, Y and Z. The witness admitted that on 16. 7. 1991 when Rs. 1 lakh was paid he was put in possession of the property.


(409) EX. P. 1 is allotment letter dated 25. 9. 1987 in respect of 10th Floor. Ex. P. 2 receipt dated 20. 2. 1990 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the sum of Rs. 23,000. 00 by way of cheque in respect of 10th Floor. Ex. P. 3 receipt dated 9. 7. 1990 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the sum of Rs. 28,244. 00 by way of cheque in respect of 10th Floor. Ex. P. 4 is letter dated 16. 7. 1991 acknowledging receipt of Rs. 1 lakh in full and final settlement.


(410) I have perused the documents. I am not at all satisfied that the plaintiff has made out any case for allotment and the allotment letter does not appear a document which have come into existence in the normal course. It has been brought about by the plaintiff and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 8 is filed to show that the plaintiff had advanced Rs. 5,65,244. 00 for Flat in Skipper. That does not show anything at all. Under these circumstances, the claim for allotment is rejected. The plaintiff shall however be entitled to the return of the amount paid. I am not inclined to direct the payment out of the common pool in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 5,65,244. 00 had been paid and the same is not disputed by the defendants. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the suit for specific performance and directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,65,244. 00 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.


(411) MRS. Surjit Kaurhad filed Suit No. 3740/92 claiming specific performance with reference to Flat No. 905-B measuring 400 sq. ft. on the basis of allotment letter dated 25. 9. 1987. Mr. Sukhjinder Singh Sangha, Director of M/s. Surjit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. was examined as Public Witness. I on 22. 8. 1996. He speaks to Exs. P. I and P. 2 Board of Resolution and Certificate of Registration. According to him ,the Flat was booked on 25. 9. 1987 as per the original agreement marked as Ex. P. 3. According to him, the Company had paid, apparently he means to Surjit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. , total sum of Rs. 6,10,000. 00. Receipts are Exs. P. 4 to P. 9 and the defendant Company had given letter dated 16. 2. 1991 and that is marked as Ex. P. 10. Defendant Co. has also given statement of account Ex. P. 11. According to the witness,on 16. 2. 1991 the defendant handed overpossession of the Flat. According to the witness, the plaintiff had filed objections in IA. 1454/93 in Suit No. 324/90 objecting to the final report.


(412) EX. P. I is the allotment letter dated 25. 9. 1987 issued to Mrs. Surjit Kaur which mentions 400 sq. ft. covered area on the 10th Floor. The rate fixed is Rs. l,000. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 2 is receipt dated 3. 3. 1990 for the issue of cheque dated 12. 2. 1990 for Rs. 20,000. 00. Ex. P. 3 is receipt dated 29. 6. 1990 for the issue of cheque dated 26. 6. 1990 Rs. 20,000. 00 paid in cash. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 9. 7. 1990 for Rs. 20,000. 00 paid in cash. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 9. 11. 1990 for Rs. 30,000. 00 paid in cash. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 16. 2. 1991 for Rs. 86. 560. 00 paid in cash. E. P. 7 is letter dated 16. 2. 1991. While the allotment letter mentions 10th Floor Ex. P. 7 refers to Flat 905- in the 9th Floor. Ex. P. 8 is statement of account sent by the defendant.


(413) A perusal of the allotment letter would show that it has been brought into existence for the purpose of projecting a case for allotment. The first payment by the plaintiff is only on 3. 3. 1990. The plaintiff had also attempted to take possession of the property when the matter was pending in this Court. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion to grant specific performance relief in favour of the plaintiff. I am of the view that in the light of the facts, the plaintiff is not entitled to pay the amount from out of the common pool. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the suit for specific performance and directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. l,76,560. 00 (proved by receipts Exs. P. 2 to P. 6) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.


(414) M/s. Surjit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 3741/92 for the relief of specific performanace with reference to Flat No. 905a on the 9th Floor measuring 600 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 25. 9. 1987. Mr. Sukhjinder Singh Sangha, Director of the plaintiff Co. was examined as Public Witness. I on 22. 8. 1996. He speaks to Exs. P. I and P. 2 Board of Resolution and Certificate of Registration. According to him, the Flat was booked on 25. 9. 1987 as per the original agreement marked as Ex. P. 3. According to him, the Company had paid total sum of Rs. 6,10,000. 00. Receipts are Exs. P. 4 to P. 9 and the defendant Company had given letter dated 16. 2. 1991 and that is marked as Ex. P. 10. Defendant Co. has also given statement of account Ex. P. 11. According to the witness, on 16. 2. 1991 the defendant handed over possession of the Flat. According to the witness, the plaintiff had filed objections in IA 1454/93 in Suit No. 324/90 objecting to the final report.


(415) EX. P. 3 is the allotment letter dated 25. 9. 1987 issued to M/s. Surjit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. which mentions 500 sq. ft. covered area on the 10th Floor. The rate fixed is- Rs. l,000. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 3. 3. 1990 for the issue of cheque dated 12. 2. 1990 for Rs. 25,000. 00. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 29. 6. 1990 for the issue of cheque dated 26. 6. 1990 Rs. 25,000. 00 paid in cash. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 9. 7. 1990 for Rs. 5,000. 00 paid in cash. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 9. 11. 1990 for Rs. 35. 000. 00 paid in cash. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 16. 2. 1991 for Rs. l,10,700. 00 paid in cash. Ex. P. 9 is the receipt dated 16. 2. 191 for the issue of cheque dated 14. 2. 1991 for Rs. I lakh. Ex. P. 10 is letter dated 16. 2. 1991. While the allotment letter mentions 10th Floor Exs. P. 8 and Ex. P. 9 refer to Flat 905-A in the 9th Floor. Ex. P. ll is statement of account sent by the defendant.


(416) A perusal of the allotment letter would show that it has been brought into existence for the purpose of projecting the agreement. The first payment by the plaintiff is only on 3. 3. 1990. The plaintiff had also attempted to take-possession of the property when the matter was pending in this Court. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion to grant specific performance relief in favour of the plaintiff. I am also not inclined to direct payment out of the common pool. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the suit for specific performance and directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,00,700. 00 (proved by receipts Exs. P. 4 to P. 9) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.


(417) MRS. Ishwar Kaur had filed Suit No. 1142/92 for specific performance claimingspaceof500sq. ft. in the 9th Floor in Flatno. 907 on the basis of agreements to sell dated 28. 2. 1981,23. 7. 1990 and 1. 8. 1990. Mr. D. D. Pal, son of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 8. 8. 1996. The power of attorney in his favour is marked as Ex. P. 1. He would tender in evidence Ex. P. 2 letter dated 28. 2. 1981. According to him, letter of allotment refers to 11th Floor. According to the witness, his mother paid Rs. 1 lakh at the time of allotment and Rs. 2. 50 lakhs on 1. 8. 1990. The receipts are Exs. P. 3 and P. 4. According to the witness, the total consideration was Rs. 2. 50 lakhs and the plaintiff had paid Rs. 3. 50 lakhs.


(418) EX. P. 2 is the allotment letter dated 28. 2. 1981. It is stated that Flat No. 1113- is subject matter of the agreement. Area is 500 sq. ft. @ Rs. 500. 00 per sq. ft. On the same date it is stated that a sum of Rs. I lakh was paid and the balance was Rs. 1. 50 lakhs. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 28. 2. 1981 given by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. which reads as under:


"we are in receipt of your pay order for the sum of Rs. l,00,000. 00 (Rupees one lac) and thanks for the same. In consideration of your payment of Rs. l,00,000. 00 we have allotted you space measuring 500 sq. ft. in our proposed multi-storeyed at 22, Barakhamba Road,new Delhi and the agreement is enclosed. It is further agreed that total cost of the Flat is Rs. 2,50,000. 00 (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand only) and inclusive of all expenses and the balance amount of Rs. l,50,000. 00 will be paid by you at the time of handing over of the possession of the Flat. "

Ex. P. 4 is the receipt dated 1. 8. 1990 for the payment of Rs. 2. 50 lakhs by Banker's cheque dated 30. 7. 1990. The plaintiff was obliged to pay Rs. 1. 50 lakhs only why a sum of Rs. 2. 50 lakhs was paid 9% years after the booking is not explained. Ex. P. 5 is letter dated 13. 5. 1991 from the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff can start interior decoration and plaintiff was put in possession on 13. 5. 1991. This is in violation of the order passed by this Court.


(419) ON a consideration of material placed before me, I am not satisfied that the transaction is genuine. The witness has not explained how the sum of Rs. I lakh was paid to Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and how Rs. 3. 50 lakhs was paid without any demand from the Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd -. A perusal of Ex. P. 2 also would show that it had not come into existence in the normal course. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for allotment is rejected. I am not inclined to direct payment from out of the common pool. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance and directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,50,000. 00 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation.


(420) 10th Floor I now take up the allotment in the 10th Floor.


(421) THE claims of Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. are to be dealt with separately.


(422) M/s. Sona Enterprises had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 23. 7. 1984. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 67,960. 00 as against Rs. 70,240. 00 , 94. 08%. The Committee had allotted 132 sq. ft. (92 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 907-C in the 9th Floor. M/s. Sona Enterprises through its partner Mr. Rajendra Saigal had filed Suit No. 3069/96 for specific performance. Mr. Rajendra Saigal was examined as Public Witness. I on 24. 1. 1997. The witness had marked receipts Exs. P. 1 to P. 8 showing the payments. Ex. P. 9 is letter of Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. seeking permission of the project for being transferred to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 10 is letter dated 15. 9. 1990 in and by which Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. demanded a sum of Rs. 18,695. 00. Ex. P. 11 is the statement of claim before the Committee.


(423) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 140 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(424) MR. Sanjeev Juneja had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 3. 8. 1984. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 93,149. 00 , 104. 82% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 140 sq. ft. (98 sq. ft. Physical Area) in the Flat No. 1007-A in the 10th Floor. Mr. Sanjeev Juneja had neither filed any suit nor had he appeared before the Court. The claim of allotment stands rejected. He shall be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings for the recovery of the amount paid by him against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. .


(425) MRS. Opindra Chadha had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 4. 4. 1985. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 2,74,125. 00 l 18. 22% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 500 sq. ft. (358: sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1006-A in the 10th 'floor. She has filed Suit No. 1978/92 for specific performance. Mrs. Opindra Chadha examined herself as Public Witness. I on 16. 8. 1996. According to her, the original allotment letter was in the name of Silverline Financiers in which her husband was the sole proprietor. The original agreement was on 4. 4. 1985 and the same is marked as Ex. P. I. The area booked was 500 sq. ft. on the 10th Floor @ Rs. 345. 00 per sq. ft. The Flat was transferred in her name on 28. 11. 1986. The endorsement is made on Ex. P. I itself and endorsement is marked as Ex. P. I. According to her, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,74,125. 00. The tabulation showing the payment is marked as Ex. P. 3. The receipt showing the payments are marked Exs. P. 4 to P. 15. Three receipts plaintiff did not receive and those payments are shown in the tabulation Ex. P. 3. About the payments made, the witness would state "cheque number relating to the payment appearing at serial Nos. 5 and 11 in tabulation (Ex. P. 3) are given therein. In addition to payment at serial No. 5 forwarding letter and registered A. D. to which the cheque was annexed dated 13. 1. 1986 are marked as Ex. P. 17 and Ex. P. 18. The defendants have also admitted in the course of proceedings that the aggregating amount paid Rs. 2,74,125. 00 at page 24. My name figured at serial No. 72 in the tentative list of allotment which is Ex. P. 19 against which the payment of Rs. 2,74,125. 00 has been shown".


(426) EX. P. 1 is the allotment letter dated 4. 4. 1983 in favour of Silverline Financiers for an area of 500 sq. ft. in the 10th floor in Flat No. 1007-A. Ex. P. 2 is the endorsement on Ex. P. I reckoning the assignment in favour of Mrs. Opindra Chadha. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 4. 4. 1985 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 1,40,500. 00. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 5. 6. 1985 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 8,625. 00. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 23. 8. 1985 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 8,625. 00. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 30. 8. 1985 issued by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 8,625. 00. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 28. 11. 1986 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. l,000. 00. Ex. P. 9 is receipt dated 28. 11. 1986 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 8,625. 00. Ex. P. 10 is receipt dated 28. 4. 1987 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 30,000. 00. Ex. P. I I is receipt dated 29. 9. 1987 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 8,625. 00. Ex. P. 12 is receipt dated 7. 12. 1987 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 8,625. 00. Ex. P. 13 is receipt dated 19. 4. 1988 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 10,000. 00. Ex. P. 14 is receipt dated 19. 8. 1988 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 8,625. 00 and Ex. P. 15 is receipt dated 7. 12. 1988 issued by Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque for Rs. 8,625. 00. Ex. P. 3 is the tabulation showing the tabulation amount paid Rs. 2,75,125. 00 , which is found to be correct by the Committee.


(427) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 500 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(428) M/s. M. L. Talwar and Co. had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 22. 10. 1985. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 50,000. 00 as against the consideration of Rs. 2,81,750. 00 , 17. 75% of the cost. The Committee had allotted 89 sq. ft. (62 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1008-A in the 10th Floor. Mr. Madan Lal Talwar, the sole proprietor of M/s. M. L. Talwar and Co. had filed Suit No. 1741 / 92 claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to 500 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor. Mr. Madan Lal Talwar examined as Public Witness. I on 2. 9. 1996. He had spoken to the receipt dated 22. 10. 1985 which according to him is the agreement for the purchase of a Flat. According to him, he issued notice on 8. 2. 1992 as evidenced by Ex. P. 2. The postal receipt is marked as Ex. P. 3. According to him, the balance was payable at the time of the delivery of possession. The total consideration payable was Rs. 2,25,000. 00.


(429) EX. P. 1 is a receipt dated 22. 10. 1985 which reads as follows:


"received a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) from M/s M. L. Talwar and Company, 2481/9, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, vide cheque No. 880594 dated 22nd October 1985 drawn on Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as advance/partpayment for having booked Flat measuring 500 sq. ft. covered area on the 10th Floor in our multi-storeyed building at 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, which is under construction, at the rate of Rs. 450. 00 per sq. ft. It is specifically agreed that the balance payment amounting to Rs. 1,75,000. 00 shall be payable only at the time of taking over possession of the said Flat on the completion of the building either by you or by your nominee/s. "

Ex. P. 2 is the legal notice dated 8. 2. 1992. The Committee had accepted the claim of the plaintiff taking it that there was an agreement on 22. 10. 1985. The receipt specifically provides that the balance will be paid only at the time of the possession of the Flat. Therefore, the claim of 500 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor by M/s. M. L. Talwar and Co. cannot be rejected. Therefore, the plaintiff represented by Mr. M. L. Talwar is allotted 500 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(430) M/s. Bharat Medicos, represents by its proprietor Mr. M. L. Talwar, has claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 22. 10. 1985. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 50,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,81,750. 00 , 17. 75% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 89 sq. ft. (62 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1008-A. M/s. Bharat Medicos through its proprietor Mr. M. L. Talwar, had filed Suit No. 1803/92 against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for specific performance. Mr. M. L. Talwar examined himself as Public Witness. I on 2. 9. 1996. He refers to the receipt dated 22. 10. 1985 whic his in the same termsas in Suit No. 1741/92 and the receipt provides that the balance of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession of the Flat. He speaks to the notice issued through Counsel on 8. 2. 1992 evidenced by Ex. P. 2.


(431) ONCE the arrangement is accepted then the allotment of 89 sq. ft. on the basis of payment made is not permissible. I am of the view that M/s. Bharat Medicos, represented by Mr. M. L. Talwar, is entitled to 500 sq. ft. Accordingly, plaintiff is allotted 500 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(432) MR. S. M. Dewan had claimed 470 sq. ft. on the 10th Floor on the basis of agreement dated 25. 11. 1985. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,34,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 3,76,470. 00 , 88. 85% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 418 sq. ft. (293 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1008-B in the 10th Floor. Mr. S. M. Dewan and Family (HUF) through its Karta Mr. S. M. Dewan had filed Suit No. 2280/93. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 6. 8. 1996. He speaks to the agreement dated 25. 11. 1985 for Flat No. 1009 and another agreement dated 25. 11. 1985 or Flat No. 1009-C for the area of 145 sq. ft. and 325 sq. ft. respectively. The rate wasrs. 700. 00 persq. ft. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 4. 12. 1985forrs. 95,000/ - for payment with reference to 145 sq. ft. Ex. P. 4 is the receipt dated 4. 6. 1987 for Rs. 3,021. 00 for the same. Ex. P. 5 is the receipt dated 4. 12. 1985 for a sum of Rs. l,05,000/ - in respect of 325 sq. ft. Ex. P. 6 is the receipt dated 26. 12. 1985 for Rs. 94,000. 00 for 325 sq. ft. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 4. 6. 1987 for Rs. 12,190. 00 for the same. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 5. 3. 1990 from the defendant. Ex. P. 10 is the plan.


(433) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 470 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(434) MR. Anupam Awasthy had claimed 502 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 5. 1. 1986. The Committee had noted that a sum of Rs. 5,19,845. 00 had been paid as against the cost of Rs. 4,97,482. 00,104. 49%. The Committee had allotted 502 sq. ft. (351 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1005-B in the 10th Floor. Mr. Anupam Awasthi alongwith Mr. Amol Awasthi had filed Suit No. 2417/96. Mr. Amolawasthi was examined as Public Witness. I on 9. 10. 1996. According to Public Witness. I the agreement was on 5. 2. 1986 as evidenced by Exs. P. 1 and P. 2. According to the witness, a sum of Rs. 5,04,112. 80 was paid. According to the witness, the plaintiffs were also allotted Car Parking Space. The receipts are Exs. P. 17 to P. 33.


(435) EX. P. I is the allotment letter dated 5. 2. 1986 in favour of Master Anupam Awasthi and Master Amol Awasthi. It refers to Flat No. 1009 and covered area of 502 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor @ Rs. 900. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 2 is the allotment letter dated 20. 3. 1986 in favour of Mr. Anupam Awasthi and Mr. Amol Awasthi for Car Parking Space No. 56. Ex. P. 3 is the letter dated 31. 3. 1986 demanding payment of Rs. 1,36,440. 00. Ex. P. 4 is letter dated 2. 6. 1986 demanding a sum of Rs. 93,869. 60. Ex. P. 5 is the letter dated 19. 3. 1986 informing the transfer of the project to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 6 is letter dated 12. 9. 1986 from the Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. asking for consent for transfer of the project. Ex. P. 7 is letter dated 4. 11. 1986 making a demand for Rs. 91,602. 20. Ex. P. 8 is letter dated 22. 11. 1986 informing the plaintiff that construction will be ready for occupation by 30th April 1987 and making demand for Rs. 38,955. 20. Ex. P. 9 is the letter dated 24. 11. 1986 again making a demand for Rs. 91,602. 20. Ex. P. 10 is letter dated 10. 12. 1986 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,30,557. 40. Ex. P. I I is letter dated 22. 12. 1986 making a demand for Rs. 1,37,607. 80. Ex. P. 12 is letter dated 27. 4. 1987 demanding a sum of Rs. 20,862. 20. Ex. P. 13 is letter dated 14. 9. 1988 reducing the area from 502 sq. ft. to 475 sq. ft. Ex. P. 14 is the letter dated 26. 12. 1989 demanding sum of Rs. l,15,460. 00. Ex. P. 15 is the letter dated 8. 5. 1990 informing the plaintiff about the progress of the work and asking him to visit the premises. Ex. P. 16 is letter dated 8. 5. 1990 about the Circular issued by the Flat Buyers Forum at the instance of Mr. D. S. Pal, an Architect. Ex. P. 17 is receipt dated 5. 2. 1986 for issue of cheque dated 3. 2. 1986 for two amounts Rs. 4,500. 00 + Rs. 7,500. 00. Ex. P. 18 is receipt dated 20. 3. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 15. 2. 1986 for the sum of Rs. 2,13,000. 00 (Rs. l,08000. 00 + l,05,000. 00). Ex. P. 19 is receipt dated 24. 4. 1986 for the sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 (Rs. 20,000. 00 + 30,000. 00). Ex. P. 20 is receipt dated 25. 2. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 23. 2. 1987 for the sum of Rs. 65,000. 00. Ex. P. 21 is receipt dated 20. 6. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 20. 6. 1986 for the sum of Rs. 23. 000. 00 (Rs. 4,000. 00 +19,000. 00). Ex. P. 22 is receipt dated 21. 3. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 17. 3. 1987 for the sum of Rs. 21,000. 00. Ex. P. 23 is receipt dated 23. 3. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 10. 3. 1987 for the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00. Ex. P. 24 is receipt dated 23. 3. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 10. 3. 1987 for the sum of Rs. 45,000. 00. Ex. P. 25 is receipt dated 13. 5. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 12. 5. 1987 for the sum of Rs. 15,862. 20. Ex. P. 26 is receipt dated 13. 5. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 12. 5. 1987 for the sum of Rs. 5. 000. 00. Ex. P. 27 is receipt dated 12. 6. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 12. 6. 1987 for the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00. Ex. P. 28 is receipt dated 27. 7. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 21. 7. 1987 for the sum of Rs. 20,732. 60. Ex. P. 29 is receipt dated 26. 9. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 7. 9. 1987 for the sum of Rs. 4,518. 00. Ex. P. 30 is receipt dated 14. 9. 1988 for the issue of cheque dated 14. 9. 1988 for the sum of Rs. 10,732. 60. Ex. P. 31 is receipt dated 15. 9. 1988 for the issue of cheque dated 18. 9. 1988 for the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00. Ex. P. 32 is receipt. dated 27. 10. 1988 for the issue of cheque dated 6. 9. 1988 for the sum of Rs. 6,800. 00 and Ex. P. 33 is receipt dated 27. 10. 1988 for the issue of cheque dated 6. 9. 1988 for the sum of Rs. 12,200. 00.


(436) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Plaintiffs are allotted 502 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(437) M/s. M. L. Talwarand Co" represented by sole proprietor Mr. M. L. Talwar, had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 27. 1. 1986. The Committee had noted that Mr. M. L. Talwar had paid Rs. 25,000. 00 as against the consideration of Rs. 78,890. 00 , 31. 69% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 44 sq. ft. (31 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1008-A. M/s. M. L. Talwar and Co. through its proprietor Mr. M. L. Talwar had filed Suit No. 1737/92 for specific performance. On 2. 9. 1996 Mr. M. L. Talwar examined himself as Public Witness. I and had spoken to the receipt Ex. P. 1 dated 28. 1. 1986 which is in the following terms :


"received a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) from M/s. M. L. Talwar and Company, 2481/9, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, vide cheque No. 880601 dated 27th January 1986 drawn on Bank of Rajasthan Limited, New Delhi, as advance for the purchase of a Flat admeasuring 140 sq. ft. on the 10th floor in building No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The rate agreed upon is Rs. 700. 00 (Rupees seven hundred only) per sq. ft. covered area. It is agreed that the balance payment will be payable at the time of handing over the possession of the Flat. "

According to him, as per the receipt the balance was to be paid at the time of possession. He also refers to the notice issued by his Counsel, copy of which is Ex. P. 2. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt and Ex. P. 4 is acknowledgement card.


(438) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 140 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(439) MRS. Vandana Aggarwal had claimed 140 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 14. 2. 1986. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. l,41,778. 00 as against the consideration of Rs. l,38,740. 00 , 102. 17% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 140 sq. ft. (98 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1005-C. Mrs. Vandana Aggarwal alongwith Master Nitin and Master Neeraj had filed Suit No. 1335/92 for specific performance with reference to Flat- No. 1008-A in the 10th Floor. Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal was examined as PW. 1 on 14. 8. 196. He speaks to the agreement on 14. 2. 1986 which is evidenced by Ex. P. I in the name of Mr. Sudhir Kumar. On 1. 9. 1986 it was transferred in the names of Mr. Adish Chand Jain and Mr. Manoj Chand Jain and on 8. 12. 1987 it was transferred in the name of Smt. Vandana Aggarwal, Master Neeraj Kumar and Nitin Aggarwal as evidenced by endorsement Ex. P. 3. Ex. P. 4 is transfer letter dated 8. 12. 1987. According to the witness, a sum of Rs. 1,41,778. 00 have been paid. Exs. P. 3 to P. 13 are the receipts.


(440) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Plaintiffs are allotted 140 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(441) M/s. Spring Valley Finance and Trade Ltd. had claimed 1300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 4. 3. 1986. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 7,28,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 9,49,910. 00 , 76. 64% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 996 sq. ft. (697 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1001 /1011 in the 10th Floor. M/s. Spring Valley Finance and Trade Ltd. had filed Suit No. 1788/ 93 for specific performance. Mr. G. P. Chobey, a Director of the plaintiff Co. , was examined as Public Witness. I on 29. 9. 1996. He speaks to the agreement on 4. 3. 1986 for 1300 sq. ft. @ Rs. 700. 00 sq. ft. Total cost works out at Rs. 9,10,000. 00 out of which Rs. 7,28,000. 00 was paid as per Exs. P. 2 and P. 3. Ex. P. 4 is the statement of account by the defendants.


(442) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. With a view to making equitable distribution, I allot 900 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(443) M/s. Golden Polyester Pvt. Ltd. had claimed 760 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 4. 3. 1986. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 4,25,600. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 5,55,532. 00 , 76. 64% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 582 s. ft. (407 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1001/1011 in the 10th Floor. M/s. Golden Polyester Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit "no. 1790/93 for specific performance. Mr. G. P. Chobey, Director of the plaintiff co" was examined as Public Witness. I on 20. 9. 1996. He speaks to the agreement Ex. P. I on 4. 3. 1986. According to him, the Flat No. 1010 was allotted and area was 760 sq. ft. The rate was Rs. 700. 00 sq. ft. The total consideration was Rs. 5,32,000. 00 and a sum of Rs. 4,25,000. 00 had been paid. The receipts are Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 and statement of account is Ex. P. 5.


(444) EX. P. I is allotment letter dated 4. 3. 1986. Ex. P. 2isreceiptno. 2177dated 5. 4. 1986 by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque dated 4. 4. 1986 for Rs. 50,600. 00. Ex. P. 3 is receipt No. 2178 dated 5. 4. 1986 by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque dated 4. 4. 1986 for Rs. l,00,000. 00. Ex. P. 4 is receipt No. 2240 dated 4. 4. 1986 by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque dated 31. 3. 1986 for Rs. 2,50,600. 00. Ex. P. 5 is receipt No. 2226 dated 4. 3. 1986 by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque dated4. 3. 1986 for Rs. 25,000. 00. No statement of account has been filed. It is wrongly noted by Public Witness. 1 that there was a statement of account. Receipts P. 2 and P. 3 dated 5. 4. 1986 are Nos. 2177 and 2178 whereas the receipts Ex. P. 4 and P. 5 dated 4. 4. 1986 and 4. 3. 1986 are Nos. 2240 and 2226 respectively. This shows that receipts Ex. P. 4 and P. 5 have been procured later on.


(445) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 760 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(446) M/s. Golden Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. had claimed 750 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 4. 3. 1986. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 4,20,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 5,85,025. 00 , 76. 64% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 575 sq. ft. (403 sq. ft. Physical Area). M/s. Golden Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 1789/93 for specific performance. Mr, G. P. Chobey examined himself as Public Witness. I for this case also on the same date. He speaks to the agreement Ex. P. I for Flat No. 1011 measuring 750 sq. ft. @ Rs. 700. 00 per sq. ft. According to him, the total consideration was Rs. 5,25,000. 00 out of which Rs. 4,20,000. 00 had been paid. Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 are the receipts Ex. P. 5 is the statement of account.


(447) EX. P. I is allotment letter dated 4. 3. 1986. Ex. P. 2 is the receipt No. 2179 dated 5. 4. 1986 by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque dated 4. 4. 1986 for Rs. 2,00,000. 00. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt No. 2241 dated 4. 4. 1986 by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque dated 31. 3. 1986 for Rs. 1,95,000. 00. Ex. P. 4 is the receipt No. 2227 dated 4. 3. 1986 by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the issue of cheque dated nil for Rs. 25,000. 00. Ex. P. 5 is statement of account. Receipt Ex. P. 4 dated 5. 4. 1986 is No. 2179 whereas the receipts Exs. P. 3 and P. 4 dated 4. 4. 1986 and 4. 3. 1986 are Nos. 2241 and 2227 respectively. This shows that receipts Ex. P. 3 and P. 4 have been procured later on.


(448) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. The plaintiff is allotted 750 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(449) MRS. Nirmal Puri had claimed 225 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 25. 3. 1986. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 1,85,107. 00 as against the cost of Rs. l,64,407. 00 , 112. 59%ofthe total cost. The Committee had allotted 225 sq. ft. (158 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1008-C. Mrs. Nirmal Puri alongwith Mrs. Vidyawati Puri and Ms. Smita Puri (minor) through her father Mr. S. M. Puri had filed Suit No. 1308/92 for the relief of specific performance. Mrs. Nirmal Puri examined herself as Public Witness. I on 14. 8. 1996. According to her, the original agreement was between Mr. A. K. Kinra and Ms. Nirmal Kinra and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and that allotment letter is Ex. P. I. That was transferred on 26. 11. 1987 and transfer letter is Ex. P. 2. The endorsement of transfer is marked as A in Ex. P. I. According to her, a sum of Rs. 1,85,107. 00 have been paid as evidenced by Exs. P. 3 to P. 8. According to her. Ex. P. 9 is the statement made before the Committee.


(450) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Plaintiffs are allotted 225 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(451) MR. Subhash Chopra had claimed 464 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 8. 4. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 4,73,217. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 4,59,824. 00 and had thus paid 102. 98%. The Committee had allotted 464 sq. ft. (325 sq. ft. Physical Area). Mr. Subhash Chopra alongwith Mrs. Rita Kharbanda, Mr. Sameer Kharbanda and Mrs. Raj Rani Chopra had filed Suit No. 2289/96 for specific performance. Mr. Subhash Chopra examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 23. 9. 1996. He speaks to that allotment letter Ex. P. 1. According to him, the plaintiffs have paid Rs. 4,61,210. 00 as evidenced by Exs. P. 2 to P. 8.


(452) EX. P. 1 is allotment letter dated 8. 4. 1986. Ex. P. 2 is receipt dated 8. 4. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 7. 4. 1986 for Rs. 2,25,968. 00 (l,91,632. 00 + 34. 336. 00). Ex. P. 3 is receipt dated 1. 8. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 28. 7. 1986 for Rs. 83,520. 00. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 25. 10. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 4. 9. 1986 for Rs. 41,760. 00. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 5. 12. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 24. 11. 1986 for Rs. 8,243. 81. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 24. 12. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 30. 11. 1986 for Rs. l,58,817. 00. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 17. 1. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 5. 1. 1987 for Rs. 36,006. 40. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 28. 9. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 8. 9. 1987 for Rs. 49,962. 30.


(453) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. Plaintiffs are allotted 464 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(454) MR. Jeet Babal Singh had claimed 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 8. 4. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,14,500. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 2,97,300. 00 and had thus paid 105. 7%. The Committee had allotted 300 sq. ft. (210 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1001-B. Mr. Jeet Babal Singh Sethi (HUF) had filed Suit No. 4289/92 for specific performance. Mr. Baljeet Singh was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 30. 8. 1996 as Karta of the plaintiff HUF. He speaks to the agreement Exs. P. 1 for 300 sq. ft. in Flat No. 1011 @ Rs. 900. 00 per sq. ft. He had paid Rs. 3,14,500. 00 as evidenced by receipts Exs. P. 2 to P. 6. Ex. P. 7 is the copy of the statement of account. According to him, he had booked two Car Parking Space. Exs. P. 8 and P. 9 are the copies of the agreements. According to him. Rs. 12,000. 00 and Rs. 10,000. 00 had been paid by receipts Exs. P. 10 and P. 11 respectively. According to him, he has to pay Rs. 10,000. 00 for Car Parking.


(455) EX. P. I is allotment letter dated 8. 4. 1986. It refers to 300 sq. ft. in Flat No. 1011 @ Rs. 900. 00 per sq. ft. Ex. P. 2 is receipt dated 8. 4. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 7. 4. 1986 for Rs. l,35,000. 00. Ex. P. 3 is receipt dated 8. 11. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 7. 11. 1986 for Rs. 45,000. 00. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 13. 1. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 5. 1. 1987 for Rs. 40,000. 00. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated31. 7. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 31. 7. 1987forrs. l3,500. 00. Ex. P. 6isreceiptdated25. 6. 1990 for the issue of cheque dated 29. 6. 1990 for Rs. 45,000. 00. Ex. P. 7 is the statement of account dated 24. 11. 196 wherein it is stated that amount due was Rs. 35,700. 00. Ex. P. 8 is the allotment letter dated 25. 2. 1986 in favour of Harleen Sahni for Car Parking Space No. 28. Ex. P. IO is the receipt dated 25. 2. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 20. 2. 1986 for Rs. 10,000. 00 in favour of Harleen Sahni. It has not been explained by P. W. 1 as to who is Harleen Sahni in A-15/27 Vasant Vihar, which is the same address as that of the plaintiff. Ex. P. 9 is the allotment letter dated 25. 2. 1986 for Car Parking Space No. 29 in favour of Mrs. Iqbal Kaur, A-15/27, Vasant Vihar. Ex. P. 11 is the receipt dated 25. 2. 1986 for the cheque dated 21. 2. 1986 for Rs. 12,000. 00. Who is Mrs. lqbal Kaur is also not explained by Public Witness. 1.


(456) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for allotment. Plaintiff is allotted 300 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor. Regarding the Car Parking Space, it shall be dealt with separately.


(457) MRS. Meera Khanna and others had claimed 1100 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 10. 4. 1986. The Committee had noted that they had paid Rs. 71akhs out of Rs. 8,80,100. 00 , 79. 59% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 874 sq. ft. (612 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1004. Mrs. Meera Khanna, Ms Nalini Khanna and Ms Vardhini Khanna had filed Suit No. 908/91 for permanent injunction but later on they have filed Court fee for specific performance. Mrs. Meera Khanna examined herself as Public Witness. 1 on 14. 8. 1996. According to her. Ex. P. 1 is the allotment letter dated 10. 4. 1986. According to her, she booked two Flats 1001 and 1002 measuring 1100 sq. ft. On 10. 4. 1986 Rs. 2,80,000. 00 was paid as evidenced by Ex. P. 2. She had paid Rs. l,20,000. 00 on 5. 5. 1986 as evidenced by Ex. P. 3. Rs. 2 lakh on 28. 1. 1987 as evidenced by Ex. P. 4 and Rs. I lakh on 15. 7. 1988 as evidenced by Ex. P. 5. The statement filed by her before the Committee is Ex. P. 6. According to her, the total consideration was Rs. 7,70,000. 00 out of which she had paid Rs. 7 lakh.


(458) I have perused the documents and I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case for allotment. But the space available is only 730 sq. ft. The plaintiffs are allotted 730 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor.


(459) M/s. Sanjay Talwar and Associates through its proprietorix Mrs. Kailash Kumari Talwar, had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 28. 5. 1986. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 25,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 4,00,500. 00 , 6. 245 of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 31 sq. ft. (22 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1008a. M/s. Sanjay Talwar and Associates through its proprietorix Mrs. Kailash Kumari Talwar, had filed Suit No. 1738/92 for specific performance in respect of 500 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor. Mr. Madan Lal Talwar was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 2. 9. 1996. Ex. P. 1 is the Power of Attorney. Ex. P. 2 is the allotment letter dated 24. 5. 1990 for 550 sq. ft. for Lower Ground Floor. Ex. P. 3 is letter dated 17. 7. 1990 from Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. confirming the allotment of Flat No. 1 on Lower Ground Floor. Ex. P. 4 is letter dated 13. 11. 1990 from Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for delivering the possession by 31st December 1990. Ex. P. 5 is copy of notice dated 8. 2. 1992 sent through Counsel. Ex. P. 6 is postal receipt and Ex. P. 7 A. D. Card. According to Public Witness. 1 no amount is due but as per plaint only Rs. 25,000. 00 had been paid against receipt dated 28. 5. 1986. The said amount has not been proved by producing any receipt.


(460) THERE is no space available in the 10th Floor after allotting to the allottees whose agreements were of earlier date. Therefore, the claim of M/s. Sanjay Talwar and Associates cannot be considered and is rejected. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance and no direction can be made for the return of the amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 as the same has not been proved by the plaintiff.


(461) M/s. M. L. Talwar and Associates through its proprietor Mr. M. L. Talwar had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 28. 5. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 25,000. 00 against the cost of Rs. 4,00,500. 00 , 6. 24% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 31 sq. ft. (22 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1008a. M/s. M. L. Talwar andassociatesthrough its proprietor Mr. M. L. Talwar had filed Suit No. 1736/92 for specific performance in respect of 500 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor. Mr. Madan Lal Talwar was examined as Public Witness. I on 2. 9. 1996. Ex. P. I is the receipt dated 28. 5. 1986 for Rs. 25,000. 00. Ex. P. 2 is copy of notice dated 8. 2. 1992 sent through Counsel. Ex. P. 3 is postal receipt and Ex. P. 4 A. D. Card. According to Public Witness. 1 Rs. 25,000. 00 had been paid vide receipt Ex. P. 1.


(462) THERE is no space available in the 10th Floor after allotting to the allottees whose agreements were of earlier date. Therefore, the claim M/s. M. L. Talwar and Associates cannot be considered and is rejected. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 25,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(463) MRS. Rupinder Kumari had filed Suit No. 1354/96 for specific performance for Flat No. 10111a on the basis of agreement dated 6. 8. 1996. Mr. Kamaljit Singh Dhillon, husband of the plaintiff was examined as Public Witness. I on 23. 9. 1996. He speaks about the Power of Attorney Ex. P. I and the agreement Ex. P. 2. According to him, the total consideration was Rs. 2,44,000. 00 but the plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,75,310. 00 as evidenced by Exs. P. 3 to P. 5.


(464) THERE is no space available in the 10th Floor after allotting to the allottees whose agreements were of earlier date. Therefore, the claim of plaintiff cannot be considered and is rejected. The payment is proved by receipt Exs. P. 3 to P. 5. Accordingly, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 2,75,310. 00 from out of the common pool.


(465) MR. A. P. Sehgal had claimed 200 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 11. 8. 1996. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. l,73,280. 00 out of Rs. l,79,200. 00 , 96. 70% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 193 sq. ft. (135 sq. ft. Physical Area). Mr. A. P. Sehgal had neither filed any suit nor had he appeared before the Court. Therefore, his claim stands rejected.


(466) MR. Dhruv Gupta had claimed 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 1. 10. 1986. I shall deal with it separately when I deal with other cases.


(467) M/s. Industrial Foams had claimed 500 sq. ft. on the basis of the agreement dated 15. 11. 1986. The Committee had noted that it had paid Rs. 3,50,000. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 4,48,000. 00 , 78. 12%. The Committee had allotted 390 sq. ft. (274 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1007-C. M/s. Industrial Foams Pvt. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 1934/96 for specific performance. Mr. Sameer Arora was examined as Public Witness. 1i on 13. 9. 1996. Resolution authorising him to give evidence is marked Ex. P. 1. The agreement is dated 25. 11. 1986 and the same is marked as Ex. P. 2. Photo copy of the receipt is marked as Ex. P. 3.


(468) IN view of the fact that there was no space available on the date of the agreement, the plaintiff is not entitled to any allotment. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid Rs. 3,50,000. 00 from out of the common pool.


(469) MR. Jaswant Singh had filed Suit No. 2575/96 for the relief of specific performance in Flat No. 1004-A in the 10th Floor measuring 550 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 24. 11. 1986.


(470) THE plaint was presented on 10. 10. 1996 on the close of the hearing of the case. The agreement filed as Annexure A is dated 24. 11. 1986. On that date there was no space available in the 10th Floor. According to the plaint, on 1. 1. 1987 a sum of Rs. 3,88,000. 00 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. In view of this, the suit is not entertained and the plaint is rejected. Under the peculiar circumstances, I direct the refund of the Court-fee to the extent of Rs. 5,000. 00 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall be at liberty to institute proceedings for the recovery of the amount paid against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd.


(471) MS Surinder Kaur (mentioned wrongly as Ms Surinder Sabharwal) had claimed 300 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 6. 12. 1986. The Committee had noted that she had paid Rs. 75,000. 00 out of the total consideration of Rs. 2,97,300. 00 , 25. 23% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 76 sq. ft. (53 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 709-B on the 7th Floor. Mrs. Surinder Kaur had filed Suit No. 2410/96 for specific performance. She examined herself as Public Witness. I on 9. 10. 1996. She would state to the agreement Ex. P. I. She would admit that the total consideration was Rs. 2,70,000. 00. She had paid Rs. 75,000. 00 as evidenced by Exs. P. 2 to P. 4.


(472) IN view of the fact that there was no space available on 6. 12. 1986, the plaintiff is not entitled to any allotment. She has proved the payment of Rs. 75,000. 00. There shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance. The sum of Rs. 75,000. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(473) MR. Hardip Singh had claimed 400 sq. ft. on the basis of agreement dated 17. 12. 1986. The Committee had noted that he had paid Rs. 3,67,080. 00 as against the cost of Rs. 3,58,400. 00 , 102. 04% of the total cost. The Committee had allotted 400 sq. ft. (280 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1010-B. Mr. Hardip Singh had filed Suit No. 120/91 for the relief of injunction and rendition of accounts. Mr. Hardip Singh examined himself as Public Witness. 1 on 26. 7. 1996 and according to him the original allotment is Ex. P. I. Endorsement of assignment is Ex. P. 3. The receipts evidencing the payments are Exs. P. 2, P. 4 to P. 12.


(474) ON the date of the agreement, there was no space available in the 10th Floor. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any allotment. However, the sum of Rs. 3,58,400. 00 shall be to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(475) MRS. Kamala Manchanda had filed Suit No. 2016/96 on the basis of allotmentletterdatedl0. 9. 1987 for 300 sq. ft. in Flat No. l008 A in the 10th Floor. Mrs. Kamala Manchanda examined herself as Public Witness. 1 on 17. 9. 1996. According to the witness, out of the total consideration of Rs. 3,30,000. 00 the plaintiff had paid Rs. 3,13,500. 00 as evidenced by Ex. P. 2 to P. 4. According to the witness, she is shown as item No. 21 in the Annexure G.


(476) IN view of the fact that there was no space on the 10th Floor on the date of agreement, the plaintiff is not entitled to any allotment. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. 3,13,500. 00. There shall be a decree dismissing the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff shall be paid a sum of Rs. 3,13,500. 00 from out of the common pool.


(477) MR. Deepak Singhal had filed Suit No. 2134/96 claiming the relief of specific performance for Flat No. 1010-C measuring 450 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor on the basis of agreement dated 17. 10. 1987. Mr. R. P. Singhal was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 17. 9. 1996, who is the father of the plaintiff. He speaks to Ex. P. 1 agreement. According to the witness, the plaintiff has paid Rs. 4,34,000. 00. The plaintiff's name is shown at serial No. 22 in Annexure G Waiting Lists of the Committee.


(478) ON the date of agreement there was no space available. Therefore, the claim for allotment cannot be considered and the same is rejected. The plaintiff is entitled to the return of the amount which is proved by receipts Ex. P. 2 dated 17. 10. 1987 for Rs. 3,82,500. 00 , Ex. P. 3 dated 16. 8. 1988 for Rs. 22,500. 00 , Ex. P. 4 dated 28. 6. 1988 for Rs. 6,150. 00 and Ex. P. 5 dated 28. 6. 198 for Rs. 22,500. 00. Thus, the total amount paid by the plaintiff comes to Rs. 4,33,650. 00. This amount shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(479) MS Priya Mehta had filed Suit No. 2191 /94 claiming the relief of specific performance with reference to Flat No. 1010-A in the 10th Floor measuring 150 sq. ft. He examined himself as Public Witness. I on 20. 9. 1996. He speaks to the agreement Ex. P. 1 on 28. 3. 1988 in favour of Mrs. Tripti Pande Desai. There was an assignment in favour of the plaintiff on 18. 2. 1989. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has paid Rs. l,45,250. 00 as evidenced by receipt Exs. P. 5 to P. II. The plaintiff prays for alternative relief of damages of Rs. 5,50,000. 00. In the cross-examination a question was put that the receipt dated 28. 3. 1988 is for the cheque dated 17. 3. 1987. The answer is that the date of the cheque is 17. 3. 1987 and on that basis the plaintiff would claim seniority.


(480) THE claim for allotment is rejected as no space was available on the date of agreement and the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages. However, the plaintiff is entitled to the return of the amount paid. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the claim for specific performance and damages. The sum of Rs. l,45,250. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(481) MR. Giriraj, Mrs. Rajni Gupta and M/s. Chhabra Steel Tubes had filed Suit No. 2313/96 for specific performance for Flat No. 12-A/10th or in the alternative Flat No. 1205-B having a covered area of 390 sq. ft. and a Car Parking Space No. 49 on the basis of agreement dated 17. 10. 1988. Mr. Sunilgupta,nephewof the plaintiff was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 10,10. 1996. According to him, the agreement was on 17. 10. 1988 for 390 sq. ft. in Flat 1012-A. According to him, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 4,22,550 / - including Rs. 15,000. 00 for Car Parking Space No. 49 as evidenced by Exs. P. 2 and P. 3. Exs. P. 4 to P. 6 are receipts for Car Parking Space. According to the witness, the plaintiff's name appear at serial No. 35 in Annexure G. In the crossexamination a question was put to him and the answer shows that the witness has not been able to explain properly.


(482) I have perused the documents. The plaintiff is not entitled to any allotment including the space for Car Parking Space. The claim for allotment is rejected. There shall be a decree dismissing the suit for specific performance. The sum of Rs. 4,22,550. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiffs from out of the common pool.


(483) M/s. Rama Leasing Co. Ltd. had filed Suit No. 1623/92 for specific performance for the entire 10th Floor and three Car Parking Garages and eight Car Parking Space and three Car Parking Garages and eight Car Parking Spacer on the basis of the agreement dated 8. 9,1990 and the supplementary agreement dated 19. 2. 1991. Mr. Jitendra N. Patel, Manager of the Company was examined as PW. 1 on 29. 8. 1996. A photo copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors is marked as Ex. P. I. Copy of the agreement dated 8. 9. 1990 is marked as Ex. P. 2. According to the witness, the plaintiff Co. had booked 11122 sq. ft. on the entire 10th Floor. The rateagreedwasrs. l,950. 00 persq. ft. The covered garages at Rs. 70,000. 00 pergarage. The plaintiff agreed to purchase three covered garages and eight Car Parking Spaces. The total consideration was Rs. 2,18,97,900. 00. The Company paid earnest money of Rs. 16,80,000. 00. Rs. 5,09,790. 00 was paid on 14. 9. 1990. The receipts are marked Exs. P. 3 and P. 4. Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. asked the plaintiff to take up possession on 31. 12. 1990 but the plaintiff did not take possession. The plaintiff and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. applied in Form No. 37 u/sec. 269-UC of Income Tax Act, 1961. The supplementary agreement was executed on 19. 2. 1991. That is marked as Ex. P. 5. The Appropriate Authority granted permission. A further payment of Rs. 50 lakhs was made and Ex. P. 7 is the indemnity bond and there was a declaration Ex. P. 8. On 19. 2. 1991 receipts were given for payment of Rs. 50 lakhs which are marked as EXS. P. 9 and P. 10. On 7. 5. 1991 Mr. Ashok J. Rambinghani wrote letters to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. which are marked as Exs. P. 11 and P. 12. According to the witness, the Architect issued a certificate with reference to 9000 sq. ft. The witness also speaks to the letter dated 30. 1. 1991 and 6. 2. 1991 by Mr. Ashok J. Rambinghani, Managing Director of the plaintiff to the first defendant Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. which are marked as Exs. P. 14 and P. 15. Ex. P. 17 is the letter dated 14. 1. 1991 from the first defendant informing the plaintiff about the clearance from the Income Tax Authorities. Ex. P. 16 is letter dated 17. 1. 1991 from plaintiff to the defendant stating that the plaintiff's Solicitor will be visiting Delhi on 22. 1. 1991 to comply with rest of the formalities. According to the witness, the plaintiff sent objections to the report given by the Committee. Letters dated 14. 9. 1990 and 18. 12. 1990 are marked as Exs. P. 18 and P. 19. A letter dated 17. 12. 1990 written by the Managing Director of the plaintiff Co. is marked as Ex. P. 20. Col. Jaswant Singh, Vice-President of the Flat Buyers Association cross-examined the witness.


(484) EX. P. 2 is the agreement dated 8. 9. 1990. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated8. 9. 1990 for the issue of cheque dated 6. 9. 1990 for Rs. 16,80,000. 00. Ex. P. 4 is receipt dated 14. 9. 1990 for the issue of cheque dated 11. 9. 1990 for Rs. 5,07,790. 00. Ex. P. 5 is the supplementary agreement dated 19. 2. 1991. Ex. P. 6 is the order passed by the Appropriate Authority. Ex. P. 7 is the indemnity given by Mr. Jaswant Singh and Mr. V. K. Saluja of the plaintiff Co. Ex. P. 8 is the declaration given by Mr. Tejwant Singh. Ex. P. 9 is the receipt dated 19. 2. 1991 for the issue of draft dated 16. 2. 1991 for Rs. 25 lakhs. Ex. P. 10 is the receipt dated 19. 2. 1991 for the issue of the draft dated 16. 2. 1991 for Rs. 25 lakhs. Ex. P. 11 is letter dated7. 5. 1991 from plaintiff to defendant calling upon the first defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the property. Ex. P. 12 is letter dated 10. 5. 1991 from the plaintiff to first defendant about the first defendant's proposal to reduce the area. Ex. P. 13 is the certificate given by the Architect that the carpet area of the 10th Floor in Skipper Tower measures 5857. 74 sq. ft. Ex. P. 14 is the letter dated 30. 1. 1991 from plaintiff to first defendant demanding certain particulars. Ex. P. 15 is letter dated6. 2. 1991 asking for copies of documents. Ex. P. 16 is letter dated 17. 1. 1991 by the plaintiff to the first defendant about the visit of the plaintiff's Solicitor. Ex. P. 17 is the letter dated 14. 1. 1991 from first defendant to the plaintiff that first defendant had obtained clearance from the Indine Tax Authorities. Ex. P. 18 is letter dated 14. 9. 1990 from the plaintiff to the first defendant stating that the name of the plaintiff Co. be read as Rama Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P. 19 is letter dated 18. 12. 1990 from plaintiff to first defendant asking the first defendant as to when the possession would be given to the plaintiff. Ex. P. 20 is letter dated 17. 12. 1990 from the plaintiff asking the first defendant to. send its reply to the Income Tax Department.


(485) I have perused the documents. The plaintiff is not entitled to any allotment because the agreement is of the year 1990 when the first defendant was not within its rights to enter into agreement. The plaintiff has proved the payment of Rs. 71,89,. 790. 00 to the defendants. There shall be a decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance. The sum of Rs. 71,89,790. 00 shall be paid to the plaintiff from out of the common pool.


(486) THE allotments to two groups of persons are yet to dealt with. One is Rajiv Gupta Group and the other is Jain Shudh Vanaspati.


(487) RAJIV Gupta group can be classified into six. First is claimed by Mr. Rajiv Gupta himself in 21 cases. Second is claimed by Mr. Rajiv Mohan, UHF. Third by Mrs. Pushpa Devi, mother of Mr. Rajiv Gupta. 4th is claimed by Ms Sangeeta Gupta w/o Mr. Rajiv Gupta; 5th Ms Urvika Gupta d/o Mr. Rajiv Gupta and the 6th is claimed by Mr. Dhruv Gupta s/o Mr. Rajiv Gupta. The total area claimed by all the groups is 13,570 sq. ft. in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th Floors. Mr. Rajiv Gupta had filed the following suits claiming the following area, details in floorwise are given- 1.


S. No.

324/91

Flat No. 811-B

8th Floor 300 sq. ft.



2.

S. No.

335/91

Flat No. 706-B

7th Floor 300 sq. ft.



3.

S. No.

335/91

Flat No. 607-A

6th Floor 400 sq. ft.



4.

S. No.

338/91

Flat No. 106-B

1st Floor 275 sq. ft.



5.

S. No.

383/91

Flat No. 603

6th Floor 700 sq. ft.


6.

S. No.

384/91

Flat No. 708-A

7th Floor 550 sq. ft.



7.

S. No.

385/91

Flat No. 708

7th Floor 550 sq. ft.



8.

S. No.

386/91

Flat No. 706-B

7th Floor 550 sq. ft.



9.

S. No.

387/91

Flat No. 707

7th Floor 750 sq. ft.



10.

S. No.

388/91

Flat No. 702-A

7th Floor 500 sq. ft.


11.

S. No.

389/91

Flat No. 705

7th Floor 700 sq. ft.



12.

S. No.

390/91

Flat No. 706

7th Floor 450 sq. ft.



13.

S. No.

391/91

Flat No. 703

7th Floor 530 sq. ft.



14.

S. No.

392/91

Flat No. 702

7th Floor 400 sq. ft.



15.

S. No.

393/91

Flat No. 702

7th Floor 400 sq. ft.


16.

S. No.

394/91

Flat No. 601

6th Floor 750 sq. ft.



17.

S. No.

395/91

Flat No. 602

6th Floor 550 sq. ft.



18.

S. No.

396/91

Flat No. 707-A

7th Floor 225 sq. ft.



19.

S. No.

397/91

Flat No. 611

6th Floor 464 sq. ft.



20.

S. No.

399/91

Flat No. 611-A

6th Floor 375 sq. ft.


21.

S. No.

410/91

Flat No. 704

7th Floor 700 sq. ft.





(488) MR. Rajiv Mohan HUF had filed the following suits and the details are as follows: 1.

S. No.

325/91

Flat No. 111-A

1st Floor 300 sq. ft.



2.

S. No.

333/91

Flat No. 609-B

6th Floor 500 sq. ft.



3.

S. No.

334/91

Flat No. 611

6th Floor 275 sq. ft.


4.

S. No.

339/91

Flat No. 606-B

6th Floor 275 sq. ft.





(489) MRS. Pushpa Devi had filed the following suit and the details are given as under" 1.

S. No.

378/91

Flat No. 710

7th Floor 760 sq. ft.





(490) MRS. Sangeeta Gupta had filed t he following suit and the details are given as under: 1. S. No. 381/91 Flat No. 909

A 9th Floor 514 sq. ft.





(491) MS Urvika Gupta had filed the following suit and the details are given as under: 1. S. No. 380/91 Flat No. 909 9th Floor 502 sq. ft.





(492) MR. Dhruv Gupta had filed the following suits and the details are given as under: 1. S. No. 324/91 Flat No. 1011-A 10th Floor 300 sq. ft.


2. S. No. 332/91 Flat No. 1011-A 10th Floor 300 sq. ft.





(493) MR. Arun Mohan, Sr. Advocate examined Mr. Rajiv Gupta as Public Witness. I in support of the plaintiffs in all the groups. He marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 51. The Committee while considering the claims of Mr. Rajiv Gupta, as a special case, had said : "4. 5. The Rajeev Gupta Group:



5. 1. The following 30 Flats are claimed by the Rajeev Gupta Group:



NAME date AREA floor (FLAT NO.)



Rajeev Gupta sep. '86 275 1st (106-B)



Rajeev Gupta (HUF) 23. 9. 86 300 1st (111-A)



Rajeev Gupta (HUF) 30. 4. 86 500 6th (609-B)



Rajeev Gupta (HUF) sept. '86 275 6th (606-B)



Rajeev Gupta (HUF) sept. '86 275 6th (611)



Rajeev Gupta 23. 1. 87 550 6th (602)



Rajeev Gupta 27. 1. 87 375 6th (611)



Rajeev Gupta 27. 1. 87 750 6th (601)


Rajeev Gupta 27. 1. 87 140 6th (611-B)



Rajeev Gupta 29. 1. 87 700 6th (603)



Rajeev Gupta 29. 1. 87 550 6th (611)



Rajeev Gupta 30. 1. 87 400 6th (607-A)



Rajeev Gupta sept. '87 300 7th (706-B)



Rajeev Gupta 1. 2. 87 700 7th (701)



Rajeev Gupta 1. 2. 87 400 7th (702)



Rajeev Gupta 1. 2. 87 225 7th (707-A)



Rajeev Gupta 3. 2. 87 700 7th (704)



Rajeev Gupta 3. 2. 87 750 7th (707)



Rajeev Gupta 4. 2. 87 700 7th (705)



Rajeev Gupta 5. 2. 87 450 7th (706-A)



Rajeev Gupta 7. 2. 87 550 7th (708-A)


Rajeev Gupta 7. 2. 87 500 7th (702-A)



Rajeev Gupta 8. 2. 87 530 7th (703-A)



Rajeev Gupta 9. 2. 87 550 7th (706)



Rajeev Gupta 12. 2. 87 550 7th (708)



Pushpa Devi 19. 6. 85 760 7th (710)



Rajeev Gupta sept. '86 300 8th (811-B)



Urvika Gupta 19. 3. 86 502 9th (909)



Sangeeta Gupta 19. 3. 86 514 9th (909-A)



Dhruv Gupta 1. 10. 86 300 10th (1011-A)


5. 5. 2 We have treated each of these claims on its own merits and applied the same yardstick that we have applied to other Flat buyers. In other words, we have calculated the total price of each Flat and the proportion of payment made by the claimant against this price. Area has been allotted according to this proportion. We may note here that we have assumed that the total cost of these Flats is made up of the same 4 constituents i. e. the basic price, the Landdo conversion charges, the electrification charge, and the fire-fighting charge (all per square foot).

5. 5. 3 It has been represented by the claimants that in their case only the basic price per square foot was applicable for computing the total price. In support of their contention, they have pointed out that the receipts issued to them in respect of some of their Flats support this contention.

5. 5. 4 Whatever the receipts issued to the Rajeev Group may say,the agreements in all these cases state that he will pay the Booking Rate, the Landdo conversion charge, the electrification charge and the fire-fighting charge. In our opinion, the Rajeev Gupta group was bound to pay those charges as other Flat buyers were bound. We are not inclined to attach much importance to the receipts issued by the Builder because they seem counter to the Agreement.

We do not know under what circumstances these receipts were issued because the Builder claims that this is a 'financial transaction'. "


(494) I have perused the documents. I have also allowed Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for Skipper Bhawan Welfare Association and Mr. Jaswant Singh, Vice-President of the Skipper Bhawan Flat Buyers' Association to cross-examine Mr. Rajiv Gupta. I have also gone through the cross-examination and I am satisfied that Mr. Rajiv Gupta group has made out a case for allotment. The Committee apparently had omitted to consider the claim of Mr. Rajiv Gupta on the basis of letter of allotment in February, 1987 because it has fixed a cut-off date 31. 12. 1986. All the transactions relied on by the group are in the normal course of business and they are supported by consideration, though one or two letters of allotment refer to Flats which are subject matter of letters of allotment of earlier dates. The main thrust in the cross-examination was that Mr. Rajiv Gupta was only financing the project and there was no transaction of agreement to sell. In other words, these letters of allotment were only to be as security for the money advanced and, therefore, this group cannot claim any allotment in the Complex. I am unable to accept this approach to be correct. The Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had not been acting in accordance with the principles of fair-play and it had been trying to hoodwink everybody concerned. Therefore, the statement in the Auditor's report that Mr. Rajiv Gupta had only financed the project cannot be taken to the last word on the point. Therefore, Mr. Rajiv Gupta is entitled to allotment. The Committee while considering the claims of persons in this Group had made the allotment in the following manner.


(495) IN Annexure I in items 45 and 46, no allotment is made in item No. 45 and in item No. 46 Mr. Rajiv Mohan HUF allotted 248 sq. ft. (173 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 1107-A is made. While making allotment in the 6th Floor in item Nos. 114, 116 and 117, in respect of Rajiv Mohan HUF allotment is made to Flat No. 1009,343 sq. ft. (240 sq. ft. Physical Area), in items 116 and 117 no allotment is made. While making allotment in the 7th Floor in items 134 and 135, allotment is made to Mrs. Pushpa Devi in item No. 134,664 sq. ft. (465 sq. ft. Physical Area). Flat number is not legible. In item 135, no allotment is made. While making allotment on 8th and 9th Floors, in item 148 Mr. Rajiv Gupta's name is mentioned but no allotment is made. In item 142 name of Ms Sangeeta Gupta is mentioned and allotment is made of 417 sq. ft. (292 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Flat No. 910-A in the 9th Floor. While considering allotment in the 10th Floor in item 170, the claim of Mr. Dhruv Gupta is considered and he is allotted 254 sq. ft. (178 sq. ft. Physical Area) in Plat No. 1108- in the 11th Floor.


(496) AS I had noticed above, this group had claimed. 13,570 sq. ft. but that is not possible, whatever remains in the 8th Floor and the 9th Floor could be allotted to this group. Accordingly, Mr. Rajiv Gupta, Mr. Rajiv Gupta HUF, Mrs. Pushpa Devi, Mrs. Sangeeta Gupta, Ms Urvika Gupta and Mr. Dhruv Mohan are all together allotted 5360 sq. ft. in the 8th floor and 6835 sq. ft. in the 9th Floor.


(497) THE next daimant to be considered is Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. group. There are six suits bearing Nos. 192/94,2426/94,2427/94,2428/94,2430/94 and 2400/94.


(498) IN Suit No. 192 /94 Elephanta Oil and Vanaspati Industries Ltd. had claimed specific performance with reference to Showroom No. G-11, entire 8th and 9th Floor. Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, Managing Director of Elephanta Oil and Vanaspati Industries was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 17. 9. 1996. According to him, there was an agreement on 3. 1. 1978, Ex. P. 1. Ex. P. I is stated to be an application of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. ,the predecessor of the plaintiff Company. Ex. P. 2 is the agreement dated 3. 2. 1978. According to the witness, the entire sale consideration of. Rs. 50,02,600. 00 had been paid and the receipts are Exs. P. 3 to P. 12. According to him, a letter was received from the 1st defendant, a copy of which is marked as Ex. P. 13. The Company has gone into liquidation and AIFA has recommended its winding up. There is a claim against Company of Punjab and Sind Bank to the tune of Rs. 14,26,00,000. 00 and from P. N. B. about Rs. 4. 5 crores. According to the witness, if the area is allotted to the Company, the Company would be able to discharge the liability and run the industry. According to the the witness, the Company does not accept the report of the Committee. Mr. Jaswant Singh, Vice-President of the Flat Buyer's Association cross-examined the witness and Exs. D. I to D. 3 were marked. Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, learned Counsel for Punjab and Sind Bank cross-examined the witness on behalf of Punjab and Sind Bank. The witness was asked about the decree passed against the Company in England and the Bank had to pay the amount to the decree-holder therein. It was suggested to the witness that the plaintiff had admitted that it had created mortgage in favour of Punjab and Sind Bank with reference to the Flats for which agreements had been entered into. The following questions and answer would show as to how the witness is trying to get over the situation: I put it to you that before the Committee Jain Shudh Vanaspati and Jain Exports accepted that the Flats are mortgaged with the Banks for recovery of its dues.


A. They are illegal mortgages. "


(499) IN Suit No. 2426/94 Mrs. Anju Jain W/o Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain had claimed specific performance in respect of Flat Nos. 501 and 502 measuring 1300 sq. ft. Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, husband of the plaintiff, was examined as Public Witness. I on 17. 9. 1996. According to him, the agreement was on 3. 1. 1978 which is Ex. P. 1. The rate was Rs. 325. 00 per sq. ft. She had paid Rs. 4,34,200. 00 as per receipt Exs. P. 2 to P. 8. Ex. P. 2 is receipt dated 7. 6. 1984 for the issue of cheque dated 7. 4. 1984 for Rs. 2 lakhs. Ex. P. 3 is receipt dated 2. 8. 1984 for the issue of cheque dated 1. 8. 1984 for Rs. 65,200. 00. Ex. P. 4isreceiptdated 18. 2. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 15. 2. 1985 for Rs. 42,250. 00. Ex. P. 5 is receipt dated 6. 5. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 3. 5. 1985 for Rs. 21,125. 00. Ex. P. 6 is receipt dated 23. 7. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 19. 7. 1985 for Rs. 21,125. 00. Ex. P. 7 is receipt dated 31. 12. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 31. 12. 1985 for Rs. 21,125. 00. Ex. P. 8 is receipt dated 4. 3. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 4. 3. 1987 for Rs. 23,120. 30. The total amount under Ex. P. 2 to P. 8 comes to Rs. 3,93,945. 30. Public Witness. I Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain does not say that on the date of the booking any amount was paid: Public Witness. I would state that a sum of Rs. 5,23,120. 00 was paid plus Rs. 11,700. 00. How is he able to give this figure is not explained?


(500) IN S. No. 2427/94 Mr. Vaneet Kumar Jain claims the relief of specific performance in respect of Flat No. 508 measuring 1000 sq. ft. Mr. Vaneet Kumar Jain was examined as Public Witness. I on 19. 9. 1996. According to him, the agreement is Ex. P. 1. The total consideration for the Flat was Rs. 3,25,000. 00. He had paid Rs. 3,34,000. 00 ap?art from the payment of Rs. 2,28,000. 00. Exs. P. 2 to P. 6 are the receipts. Mr. Jaswant Singh cross-examined the witness. In the cross-examination Mr. Vaneet Kumar Jain admits that he is Director of Pashupati Acrylon Ltd. About the payments made on 11. 10. 1991 and 11. 11. 1991 the witness would state:


"q. The cheques for the sum of Rs. 40,00,000. 00 and 20,00,000. 00 paid to the Skippers on 11. 10. 1991 and 11. 11. 1991 was given from the account of your Company or from your personal accounts? Ans. The cheques were given from the account of my Company by Mr. Kukesh Jain to the defendants. "


(501) EX. P. 1 is the agreement dated 3. 1. 1978. On that date Master Vaneet Jain was minor. Ex. P. 2 is the receipt dated 5. 1. 1978 for the issue of Bank Draft dated 4. 1. 1978 for Rs. 48,750. 00. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 17. 9. 1984 for the issue of cheque dated 1. 8. 1984 for Rs. 75,000. 00. Ex. P. 4 is the receipt dated 23. 7. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 19. 7. 1985 for Rs. 1,94,000. 00. Ex. P. 5 is the receipt dated 30. 12. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 30. 12. 1985 for Rs. 16,250. 00. Ex. P. 6 is the receipt dated 3. 3. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 9. 3. 1987 for Rs. 17,784. 85.


(502) IN Suit No. 2428/94 Mr. Vinod Jain claims specific performance with reference to Flat Nos. 503 and 504. In the plaint in paragraph 3 it is stated that the agreement was on 3. 1. 1978 for allotment of Flat Nos. 506 and 507 on the 5th Floor measuring 1510 sq. ft. and Flat Nos. 509, 510 and 511 on the 5th Floor measurirtg 2510 sq. ft.


(503) MR. Vinod Kumar Jain was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 17. 9. 1996. According to him, he had booked Flat Nos. 506 to 511 measuring 4020 sq. ft. He had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 13,22,680. 00 under receipt Exs. P. 2 to P. 13. He had also paid L and D. O. and electricity charges amounting to Rs. 9,16,560. 00. According to the witness. Ex. P. 14 is the second agreement dated 3. 1. 1978 which refers to Fiat Nos. 509,510 and 511.


(504) EX. P. I is the agreement dated 3. 2. 1978. It is the claim of the plaintiff that for Flat Nos. 506 and 507 on 3. 1. 78 a cheque for Rs. 23,362. 50 was issued and on 2. 2. 1978 another cheque for Rs. 73,612. 50 was issued. As per the document on 4. 1. 1978 a Bank Draft for Rs. 1,22,362. 50 was paid for Flat Nos. 509,510 and 511. Ex. P. 14 is the agreement dated 3. 1. 1978 with reference to Plat Nos. 509,510 and 511. Ex. P. 2isthereceiptdated 19. 7. 1984forissueofchequedated 17. 7. 1984forrs. I lakh for Flat Nos. 509-10-11. Ex. P. 3 is the receipt dated 2. 8. 1984 for the issue of cheque dated 1. 8. 1984 for Rs. 1,45,040. 50 for Flat Nos. 506 and 507. Ex. P. 4 is the receipt dated23. 8. 1984 for the issue of cheque dated l. 8. 1984 for Rs. l,45,040. 50 for Flat Nos. 509,510 and 511. Ex. P. 5 is the receipt dated 18. 2. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 15. 2. 1985 for Rs. 49,074. 00 for Flat Nos. 506 and 507. Ex. P. 6 is the receipt dated 6. 5. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 3. 5. 1985 for Rs. 24,538-00 for Flat Nos. 506 and 507. Ex. P. 7 is the receipt dated 23. 5. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 20. 5. 1985 for Rs. 75,000. 00 for Flat Nos. 509,10,11. P. 8 is the receipt dated 23. 7. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 19. 7. 1985 for Rs. 24,537. 50 for Flat Nos. 506 and 507. P. 9 is the receipt dated 30. 12. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 30. 12. 1985 for Rs. 24,537. 50 for Flat Nos. 506 and 507. P. 10 is the receipt dated 9. 1. 1986 for the issue of cheque dated 8. 1. 1986 for Rs. 55,000. 00 for Flat Nos. 509 to 511. P. 11 is the receipt dated 23. 5. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 9. 1. 1986 for Rs. 53,937. 50 for Flat Nos. 509 to 511. P. 12 is the receipt dated 3. 3. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 9. 3. 1987 for Rs. 69,003. 06 for Flat Nos. 509, 10, 11. P. 13 is the receipt dated 3. 3. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 9. 3. 1987 for Rs. 26,855. 10 for Flat Nos. 506 and 507.


(505) IN Suit No. 2430/94 Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. had claimed the relief of specific performance with reference to Flat Nos. 1003 to 1008. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is stated as under :


"that on 3. 1. 1978,the plaintiff Company made payment of a sum of Rs. 1,79,850. 00 vide cheque No. 928222 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chawri Bazar, Delhi to defendant No. 1 Company - the same being towards earnest money, for allotment and sale of Flat Nos. 1003 to 1008 on the 10th floor admeasuring 4360 sq. ft. alongwith 3 Car Parking Spaces in the upper basement at Skipper Towers, 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001 booked @ Rs. 275. 00 per sq. ft. Accordingly on 3. 1. 1978, an Allotment Lettercum-Agreement for sale was issued to the plaintiff Company by defendant No. 1 Company. "


(506) MR. V. C. Jain, Chief Executive of the Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. was examined as Public Witness. I onl9. 9. 1996. According to him, the agreement between the plaintiff Company and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. was on 3. 1. 1978. That is Ex. P. I. The plaintiff Company had booked Flat Nos. 3 to 8 on the 10th Floor measuring 4360 sq. ft. including 3 Car Parking Spaces in the Upper Basement. The total amount paid was as on 7. 3. 1987 Rs. 13,48,222. 45. The Company had paid excess amount of Rs. 1,49,225. 45. The receipts evidencing payments are Exs. P. 2 to P. 5. Mr. Jaswant Singh cross-examined the witness and asked him that receipts for Rs. 8,66,132. 45 were not filed before the Committee and only receipts for Rs. 4,82,090. 00 were filed. The answer was that it related to Account Section. The following question and answer would show that the witness does not know anything about the transaction : Why was a consolidated cheque of Rs. 40,00,000. 00 and 20,00,000. 00 issued by Pashudi Acrylon on 10. 10. 1991 to cover the liabilities of individuals in the property? Ans. It is a matter of financial arrangement. We can have financial arrangement with any one. "


(507) EX. P. 1 is the agreement dated 3. 1. 1978 with reference to Flat Nos. 3 to 8 in the 10th Floor. The approximate covered area being 4360 sq. ft. It is made to appear that there was a cheque payment on 4. 1. 1978 for Rs. l,79,850. 00. P. 2 is the receipt dated 2. 8. 1984 for the issue of cheque dated 1. 8. 1984 for Rs. 3,02,240. 00 for Flat Nos. 1003 to 1008. P. 3 is the receipt dated 23. 3. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 21. 3. 1985 for Rs. 59,950. 00 for Flat Nos. 1003 to 1008. P. 4 is the receipt dated 14. 5. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 1. 5. 1985 for Rs. 59,950. 00 for Flat Nos. 1003 to 1008.


(508) IN Suit No. 2688/94 Mr. Manish Jain had claimed specific performance with reference to Flat Nos. 503 and 504. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is stated as under:


"that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 3,67,400. 00 as earnest money for allotment of Flat Nos. 503 and 504 on the Fifth Floor admeasuring 1,100 sq. ft. at Skipper Towers, 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001 @ Rs. 325. 00 per sq. ft. Accordingly on 3. 1. 1978, an Allotment Lelter-cum-Agreement for sale was issued to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 Company. "


(509) MR. Vinod Kumar Jain,father of Mr. Manish Jain, was examined as Public Witness. 1 on 17. 9. 1996k. According to him. Flat Nos. 3 and 4 on the 5th floor were booked on 3. 1. 1978. Ex. P. 1 is the agreement. A sum of Rs. 3,67,400. 00 evidenced by Ex. P. 2 to P. 6 was paid. He had also paid Rs. 2,50,800. 00 towards L and D. O. and electricity charges. He stated frankly the following:


"q. Have you made some other payments also to the builder? Ans. We have paid Rs. 40 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs during the period 10. 11. 1991 and 11. 11. 1991 by cheques. This is excess payment. Q. Why do you make this excess payment? Ans. For L and D. O. , electricity and fire-fighting charges. This payment was made towards all the transactions including the Company and also individual names. "


(510) IT is made to appear that on 4. 1. 1978 a Bank Draft for Rs. 53,625/ -was paid. Ex. P. 2 is the receipt dated 5. 1. 1978 for the issue of cheque dated 4. 1. 1978 for Rs. 53,625. 00. P. 3 is the receipt dated 23. 7. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 19. 7. 1985 for Rs. 60,000. 00. P. 4 is the receipt dated 10. 9. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 6. 9. 1985 for Rs. l,60,900. 00. P. 5 is the receipt dated 30. 12. 1985 for the issue of cheque dated 30. 12. 1985 for Rs. 17,875. 00. P. 6 is the receipt dated 3. 3. 1987 for the issue of cheque dated 9. 3. 1987 for Rs. 19,563. 35.


(511) THE Committee had dealt with the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Group in paragraphs 4. 2 to 4. 2. 8, which are as under:


"4. 2. The Jain Shudh Vanaspati Group. 4. 2. 1. The following ares have been booked by the Jain Shudh Vanaspati group: NAME area floor Jain Shudh Vanaspati 16,340 8th/9th Jain Shudh Vanaspati 440 ground Jain Exports (P) Ltd. 4,360 10th Vinod Kumar Jain 4,020 5th Anju Jain 1,300 5th Vaneet Jain 1,000 5th Manish Jain 1,100 5th Total: 28,560 sq. ft. In addition, the group has also claimed 10 Car Parking Spaces. 4. 2. 2. Out of these areas, some of the area of Jain Shudh Vanaspati, namely, 16,340 sq. ft. on the 8th/9th floor and 440 sq. ft. on the Ground Floor were mortgaged on 23. 11. 83 in favour of Punjab and Sind Bank, International Banking Division, 5, Scindia House, New Delhi. Punjab and Sind bank has also claimed these areas. The claim of Punjab and Sind Bank will be taken up separately. 4. 2. 3. In respect of these areas, conflicting claims have been made by the Builder and the claimants. "the claimants have submitted a statement of account (vide their letter dated November 2,1992) in which it is claimed that a total sum of Rs. 1. 46 crores was paid against the entire booking. They also claim that they made payments of all instalments demanded by the Builders in due time. The Builder, on the other hand, claims that the area of the claimants was reduced to a total of 16,340 sq. ft. due to delayed payments. A Statement of Account lias been filed by them in support of their claim 4. 2. 4. We have noted that the claimants have made the following payments in 1991: (i) Rs. 40 lacs paid vide cheque dated October 11, 1991. (ii) Rs. 20 lacs paid vide cheque dated November 11, 1991. 4. 2. 5. We have also noted that on October 30,1991 a letter was written by the Builder to the claimants (the receipt of which is admitted by the claimants) an extract from which is given below: Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110 001. "

Sub: SPACE IN SKIPPER BHAWAN, 22 BARAKHAMBA ROAD IN THE NAME OF YOURS,your FAMILY AND COMPANIES. "as discussed with you we have no objection in case you go ahead with interior decoration/wood work after 15th Nov. 1991 i. e. after payment has been realised, under our supervision in the area already marked for you i. e. 16340 sq. ft. super area comprising entire 8th Floor and balance area on the 9th Floor. "

A copy of the said letter is enclosed and marked as Annexure-O. 4. 2. 6. It is stated by the claimants themselves in the reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Committee dated 26. 6. 93 that on the basis of this letter, the claimants took possession of the said area and got their telephones installed.

4. 2. 7. The letter of Oct 30, 1991 is addressed to "mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and clearly refers to"space. . . . in the name of yours ,your family and companies" It is beyond doubt that payments were made by the claimants immediately before the receipt of the letter (by their cheque dated October 11, 1991) and immediately after its receipt (by their cheque dated November 11,1991). It is also beyond doubt that possession was taken by the claimants in accordance with this letter.


4. 2. 8. Before us the Jain Shudh Vanaspati group has claimmed as aforesaid the full area of 28,560 sq. ft. We are of the view that they are entitled to 16,340 sq. ft. and no more. Our reasons are these: Firstly the letter dated October 30,1991 shows that the allotment of 16,340 on 8th and 9th Floor was in full satisfaction of all their claims. This agreement of final satisfaction was reached on October 30, 1991 when disputes had started and it was common knowledge that the Builder is not in a position to give 28,560 sq. ft. Secondly the payment of Rs. 60 lakhs was made in October and November, 1991 after the Committee had come into existence. Thirdly, the Jain Shudh group is a bulk purchaser and having regard to the claims of other Flat buyers it will be just to give no more than 16,340 sq. ft. to this party. We make it clear that Jain Shudh group will be free to pursue such other remedies as are available to them against the Builder. "


(512) IN paragraph 4. 3 the claim of Punjab and Sind Bank, for security with reference to 16,340 sq. ft. in the 8th and 9th Floors, 440 sq. ft. on the Ground Floor and 4360 sq. ft. in the 10th Floor, has been considered in the following terms:


4. 3 Punjab and Sind Bank.

4. 3. 1 The following areas originally allotted to Jain Shudh Vanaspati and Jain Export (P) Ltd. were mortgaged on 23. 11. 83 in favour of Punjab and Sind Bank, International Banking Division, 5 Scindia House, New Delhi : (i) 16,340 sq. ft. on 8th/9th Floor. (ii) 440 sq. ft. on the Ground Floor. (iii) 4,360 sq. ft. on the 10th Floor.

4. 3. 2 We are of the opinion that we cannot recognise and uphold the claim of the Punjab and Sind Bank in these proceedings, as the same is admittedly founded on the basis of a mortgage security given by Jain Shudh Vanaspati in favour of the Bank in lieu of the Bank providing certain loans / advances to lain Shudh Vanaspati. In these proceedings we cannot pronounce on the validity or otherwise of the security so furnished to the Bank. These are matters which ought to be agitated in a Court of Law and not before this Committee.

4. 3. 3 Therefore, we do not recommend any allotment to Punjab and Sind Bank. We make it clear that the Bank may pursue such other remedies against Jain Shudh Vanaspati ad advised. "


(513) EX. D. 1 are the minutes of the proceedings before the Committee on 26. 7. 1992. Mr. B. N. Kapoor, Finance Manager of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. gave a statement stating that full payment for 8th and 9th Floors had been made. To show the payment of Rs. 60 lakh he would produce the receipts. Possession was handed over to the Company on 11. 10. 1991. On 1. 8. 1992 the Committee had noted that Mr. B. N. Kapoor, Finance Manager filed the receipt issued by Grandlays Bank whereby the cheque issued on 11. 11. 1991 for Rs. 40 lakhs was paid to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. It also filed a certificate dated 31. 7. 1992 by the Allahabad Bank with reference to cheque dated 11. 10. 91 for Rs. 20 lakhs which had been issued to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. onl4. 10. 1991. In the minutes dated 16. 8. 1992 the statement of Mr. Narula on behalf of Punjab and Sind Bank that the Bank had lien over Flat No. G-11 was recorded. In the minutes of the meeting dated 31. 10. 1992, what was submitted on behalf of Jain Shudh Vanaspati is recorded in the following terms :


"jain SHUDH VANASPATI: We have heard Mr. B. N. Kapoor, C. A. of Jain Sudh Vanaspati in respect of claims made by Jain Sudh Vanaspati and the members of the family of Sh. Vinod Jain and sister concern. On behalf M/s Skipper Towers we have heard Mr. Salwan. The question that arose for consideration last time was, as raised by Mr. Salwan, that Jain Sudh Vanaspati and the individual members of the family of Vinod Jain and associated company are entitled to only an area of 16340 sq. ft. and not more. For this purpose he has drawn our attention towards a letter written by Skipper dated 13th October, 1991. In reply Mr. Kapoor says that this not correct that the area is only 16000 sq. ft. to which we are entitled. He asserted that we are entitled to the entire area booked by us i. e. 28520 sq. ft. with regard to the letter he says that letter was written when possession was being given to us regarding 8th and 9th Floors. It does not take away our right to claim area on other claims booked by us. Mr. Kapoor will give us details of all payments on the next date of hearing. Mr. Salwan will also give in writing his contention that Jain Sudh Vanaspati etc. are entitled only to an area of 16340 sq. ft. and not more. For this purpose we adjourned the case for Sunday, the 8th November, 1992 at 11. 00 a. m. "


(514) IN the minutes dated 8. 11. 1992 Mr. B. N. Kapoor, Finance Manager had claimed that Jain Sudh Vanaspati, allied concern of the family members, would be entitled to 28,560 sq. ft.


(515) IN the minutes dated 15. 11. 1992 the presence of Mr. B. N. Kapoor and Advocate on behalf of Punjab and Sind Bank was noted. In the minutes dated 22. 11. 1992, wherein the statement of Mr. Salwan is recorded in the following terms:


"mr. Salwan has filed a statement of account of Jain Sudh Vanaspati and Associates. His submission is that Skipper received a sum of Rs. l,59,84,250. 00 in respect of an area of 16340 sq. ft. He has given the details of the calculation. According to Mr. Salwan, Jain Sudh Vanaspati cannot claim an area of 28,516 sq. ft. because of payment made by them is only for 16340 sq. ft. as per the statement of account. "

Mr. B. N. Kapoor had asked for time to file a reply. In the minutes dated 23. 12. 1992 the Committee had noted that Mr. B. N. Kapoor had stated that Jain Sudh Vanaspati had booked 7 Car Parking Spaces and Mr. L. K. Gupta had stated that Jain Sudh Vanaspati Associates had been given area as per the payments made and no place had been allotted for Car Parking Space.


(516) PUNJAB and Sind Bank had filed an application as its claim for security had been rejected by the Committee in paragraph 4. 3, which is already extracted. The Committee had expressed the view that the claim of the Bank cannot be considered by the Committee. Now when the Punjab and Sind Bank had filed the application claiming the mortgage rights over the Flats, I feel it is necessary to decide this issue. I am aware of the fact that the Punjab and Sind Bank had filed a suit for recovery of the amount and whatever view that is expressed here would have a bearing on the case put forth by the Punjab and Sind Bank. However, it has got to be decided on the basis of the materials now produced by Punjab and Sind Bank and no evidence is required for deciding the issue and when Punjab and Sind Bank claiming rights over the Flats, I must decide this point before deciding on the claims of the allottees Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. (Elephanta Oil Industries Ltd. and Others). The Bank had filed indemnity bond dated 15. 6. 1982 executed by (1) Jain Shudh Vanaspati (Elephanta Oil Industries Ltd.), (2) Mr. Jagadish Rai Jain, (3) Mr. Swaraj Kumar Jain, (4) Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, (5) Mr. R. N. Jain, and (6) Mr. L. N. Jain. The subjectmatter of the indemnity bond is as follows :


"sub: Letter of Credit No. IBD/118/8371/79 for US $ 22,50,000. 00 favouring Messrs Bentrex and Co. , Singapore, opened on our application, by you and negotiated by the European Asian Bank-Disputes relating thereto including suit entitled "european Asian Bank v. Punjab and Sind Bank", pending in the High Court of Judicature, London. "


(517) ON 11. 7. 1983 Jain Sudh Vanaspati wrote to the Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank enclosing a draft indemnity bond staling :


"you have already got charge/encumbrances of land, building, plan and machinery in consideration of your having granted us credit facilities including the amount due under the decree passed by the Court of Appeal in London which decree is binding on us. By way of additional security, we also enclose herewith documents of title pertaining to Flat Nq. as per Annexure 'a" owned by Mrs. Anju Jain, Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain and Company etc. The property shall be available to the bank for repayment of the amount from us. "

What is stated in Annexure A is as follows:"list OF FLATS SITUATED AT 22, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI NAME flat NO. Vinod Kumar Jain 506 and 507 Vinod Kumar Jain 509,510 and 511 Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. Show Room No. G-ll Floor 9 Floor 8 Anju Jain 501 and 502 (figure illegible) sq. ft. at Arodia Building at 7th Floor situated at Nariman Point, Bombay in the name of Sh. Vinod Jain and Smt. Anju Jain w/o Sh. Vinod Jain. "


(518) ON 23. 7. 1983 the following 11 persons executed indemnity bond in favour of Punjab and Sind Bank under the following subject matter:


"1. Jain Shudh Vanaspati ltd. 2. Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain 3. Mr. Rakesh Jain 4. Mr. Jagdish Rai Jain 5. Mr. R. N. Jain 6. . Mr. Swaraj Kumar Jain 7. Mr. N. L. Jain 8. Mr. Siri Ram Jain 9. Mr. Rajan Jain 10. Mrs. Anju Jain 11. M/s. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd.

"sub: Letter of Credit No. IBD/118/8371/79 for US $ 22,50,000. 00 favouring Messrs Bentrex and Co. , Singapore, opened by us at your Branch and negotiated by the European Asian Bank, and suit entitled "ea Bank Vs. PSB", and decree passed by the Court of Appeal, London. "

What is stated in paragraph F is relevant and reads as follows:"that besides the immovable and movable properties of the Company, viz. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Limited, which are already mortgaged/charges upto you,immovablenos. 1 to11,9th Floor,showroomno. 11,groundfloor,flats Nos. 3 to 8, 10th Floor, Nos. 6 and 7,5th Floor, Nos. 1 and 2 5th Floor, 9th to 11,5th Floor, of No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and Half Floor of the 7th Floor, Arcadia, Block-111, Nariman Point, Bombay, shall also be mortgaged and charges unto you and our rights assigned and the same shall be availableto you for the recovery of the amount due in the said loan account, notwith- standing any other security or guarantee (personal or otherwise) available to you. "

The applicant has also filed statement showing the liability of Elephanta Oil Industries Ltd. (Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd.) to the Punjab and Sind Bank to the tune of Rs. 83,59,96,836. 00.


(519) THE Flats on the 8th and 9th Floors, 501,502,506,507,509,510 and 511 and entire 10th floor had been mortgaged. The Flat No. 508 booked by Vaneet Kumar Jain plaintiff in Suit No. 2427/94 and Flat Nos. 503 and 504 booked by Mr. Manish Jain in Suit No. 2688/94 are not subject matter of mortgage.


(520) BUT whatever the position may be, the Punjab and Sind Bank had filed suit against the members of the family including two Companies. Section 58 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines what is an equitable mortgage. The Bank must have verified whether the mortgagor had subsisting title over the property. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is very clear that mere agreement for sale does not confer any title. Section 54 reads as under:


"54. "sale"defined.-"sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.-A contract for the sale of immovable property is contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. "


(521) THEREFORE, by virtue of the letter of allotment the mortgagors had no title over the property and, therefore, they cannot in law offer the Flats as security to the Punjab and Sind Bank. It is a little disturbing that Punjab and Sind Bank, without proper application of mind, had chosen to take the Flats as the security for the amount due from the mortgagors. The mortgagors also had not acted fairly in offering the Flats as security. On the date of the deposit of the so-called title deeds the building itself had not been completed. In 1983 it was only pile foundation was being done and, therefore, in law there can be no mortgage of these Flats to Punjab and Sind Bank.


(522) IN view of the conduct of the Elephanta Oil Industries Ltd. , Jain Export (P) Ltd. and Directors of the Companies, I am of the view that they are not entitled to the relief of specific performance. It is admitted that Elephanta Oil Industries Ltd. (Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd.) is in liquidation. The position of Jain Export (P) Ltd. is also not disclosed. A payment of Rs. 60 lakhs had been made in 1991 when this Court had granted injunction restraining Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. from doing any act with reference to the Complex. Under these circumstances, I find it very difficult to exercise my discretion in favour of the plaintiffs in all the suits. Therefore, the claim for specific performance is rejected. Defendants have not disputed the payment. Therefore, there shall be a decree dismissing the suits for specific performance and directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 50,02,600. 00 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. Punjab and Sind Bank is not entitled to any rights as mortgagees in respect of the Flats, Therefore, the claim of Punjab and Sind Bank stands rejected.


(523) THE Committee had dealt with the claim of New Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank) for 13,000 sq. ft. area in the Upper Basement on the basis of agreement with Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. According to New Bank of India the area of 13,000 sq. ft. had been allotted to Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. on the basis of agreement dated 9. 5. 1987 on the resolution of the Builder dated 13. 7. 1987. The Committee had rejected the claim of Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and also the assignment in favour of New Bank of India. Neither the Punjab National Bank nor the Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. had appeared before the Committee making any claim and the Committee had also considered the claim of Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. in paragraph 4. 1. 1. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Committee is confirmed.


(524) THE Committee had dealt with the claim of Anand Metal Works and Ujala Leasing in paragraph 4. 8 of the Report. With great respect to the learned Judges of the Committee, I agree with them. Anand Metal Works and Ujala Leasing have not come forward with any claim before Court. They are at liberty to proceed against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the money paid by them.


(525) REGARDING the 12th Floor, as it is, no allotment can be made. The NDMC has to give the completion certificate and the Chief Architect, NDMC had already noticed that some portions in the 12th Floor are not authorised. Therefore, any allotment could be considered only after the Complex is made functional and the completion certificate is issued by the NDMC. What remains in the 12th Floor after the issue of the completion certificate may be made available to the Association of the allottees and that is a matter to be dealt with after the completion certificate is issued by the NDMC.


(526) REGARDING Car Parking Space in the lower basement and the Car Parking , Space outside, no allotment can be made now. The entire Complex has got to be ready and the Sub-Station has to be installed in one of the basements and what are the other requirements by Public Authorities and what are the safeguards that had to be provided in the basements for the safety of the persons coming into the Complex and doing business in the Complex have all to be ascertained after the issuance of the completion certificate by the NDMC. After that process is over, the area available for allotment of Car Parking shall be ascertained and among the allottees the allotment of Car Parking areas inside the basement and outside the Complex shall be decided by draw of lots. Such of those persons who had filed only for Car Parking area shall be entitled to institute proceedings against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the amount due. Those who have not been allotted Flats or space and had also applied for Car Parking Space cannot be allotted any Car Parking Space shall be at liberty to proceed against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the amounts. And those who have filed suits, provision is made for the payment of the principal amount from out of the common pool.


(527) THOSE who had filed suits on the basis of letters of allotment in respect of Upper Basement, Middle Basement and Lower Basement are not entitled to any allotment of space or Car Parking Areas. Provision is made for the payments of monies paid by these agreement holders.


(528) I consider that the name of the Complex should be changed. We are celebrating the Golden Jubilee Year of our Independence. The name of a great warrior of freedom comes to my mind. He was prosecuted for sedition. After finding him guilty, the learned Judge, who tried the case, formally wanted to hear him on the question of sentence. The Judge asked him whether he had anything to say. The great freedom fighter replied without caring for his life bearing in mind the freedom of his country " still maintain that I am innocent. It is the Will of the Providence that the cause I represent should prosper more by my suffering than by my remaining free. " That great leader was 'lokmanya BALAGANGADHAR TILAK'. These immortal words of sacrifice should be imbibed by all the citizens of India to improve the image of Mother India. The President of the Bar Association of India, Mr. F. S. Nariman in in his inspiring message to the delegates of All India Lawyers Convention on the 8th of August 1997 in New Delhi celebrating Golden Jubilee of India's Independence, 50 years. Freedom through The Rule of Law, indicating how we should try to emulate great leaders narrated an incident to make us fully realise our duties and responsibilities: "there is a story told of the time when the United States of America (like India) was a young, struggling Republic rid by dissensions, ultimately leading to the conflict of North and South which nearly destroyed that nation. It was during this period that Mr. Lowell, the American Ambassador to the Court of St. James in London was asked (somewhat patronisingly) by the French Ambassador:


"tell me, Mr. Ambassador, tell me, How long will your United States last?"

The answer was as courageous and courteous, as it was prophetic:"sir, so long as our leaders live upto and cherish the ideals of its Founding Fathers. "

This would apply to the citizens of this country as well. To cherish the memory of that great leader of leaders, I feel it is in the fitness of things and it is proper that While paying homage to that Titan among freedom fighters and by way of our humble tribute to him, in the Golden Jubilee Year of India's Independence, the Complex in the National Capital should be named after him. The Complex at 22, Barakhamba Road shall hereafter be called 'lokmanya BALAGANGADHAR TILAK BHAVAN'.


(529) THE Committee had stated that out of 379 claims, 289 had been accommodated in the Complex. That is not possible. The building has to be made to conform to the Acts, Bye-laws and the Rules. There should not be too much crowd in a place like 22, Barakhamba Road where the area available is very small. The Chief Architect of the N. D. M. C. has stated that the builder had not put up the construction in accordance with law. How many portions have to be chipped off are yet to be decided? The Chief Architect, N. D. M. C. had clearly stated that no allotment could be made in the basements for office or business purposes. The Electrical Sub-Station has not yet been installed. Space is required for the same. How much space N. D. M. C. would require for this purpose is yet to be decided? Therefore, all the claims for allotment in basements stand rejected. The following suits are dismissed without costs:


"suit Nos. 1827,3011,3858,2706,2095,2093,1739 and 1740 of 1992,1123/93, 2117/94,2128,2058,2004,2005,2097,2490,2107,2118,1960,2308,2255,2253, 2811,2185,2186,2187,2272,2179,1929,1927,2682,2199,2365,2363,2003,2327, 3001,3002,2978,2979,2684,1784,2309,2299,2315,2317,2318,2331,2332,2214, 2288, 1930,2136,2538,3107,3108,3109,3110,3111,3112,3113,3114,2182 and 3045 of 1996,107/97. "


(530) THE four suits filed by Mr. Jagan Nath Group bearing Nos. 3109/96,3111/ 96,3112/96 and 3113/96 have to be dealt with separately.


(531) IN Suit No. 3109/96 Mr. Jagan Nath Grover, Mr. Kapil Grover, Mr. Lalit Grover and Ms. Pushplata had claimed specific performance for 500 sq. ft. on Middle Basement on the strength of agreement dated 7. 11. 1981. The rate mentioned is Rs. 325. 00 per sq. ft. Alongwith the plaint, in Annexure A the details of payment are given in the following terms : DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE BY SH. J. N.



GROVER: BASEMENT -18


R. No. date Amount (Rs.) cheque No. date bank



730. 7. 11. 81 5000 0045634 7. 11. 81 bob ltd. Tr.



from LB-38



735 7. 11. 81 5000 045634 7. 11. 81 "



1282 16. 8. 84 24000 0328327 16. 8. 84 "



1208 4. 07. 84, 15000 326401 4. 7. 84 "



1288 16. 8. 84 14000 328328 17. 8. 84 "



2243 23. 4. 86 40000 lb-37) Trans-



)fer



2841 2. 7. 87 27500 lb-50 Jhandewalan Tower)from



2845 2. 7. 87 9000 cash



2939 23. 7. 87 3250 cash



______



TOTAL 142750




(532) IN Suit No. 3111/96 Mr. Jagan Nath Grover, Ms Urmila Grover and Ms Promila Grover have claimed the relief of specific performance with reference to 460 sq. ft. in the Middle Basement on the strength of agreement dated 7. 11. 1981. The rate mentioned is Rs. 325. 00 per sq. ft. Alongwith the plaint, in Annexure A the details of payment are given in the following terms: R. No.

Date Amount (Rs.)

Cheque No.

Date

Bank



729.

7. 11. 81

5000

0045634

7. 11. 81

BOB Ltd.



732.

"

5000

-DO-



734.

"

5000

-DO-



738

"

4000

0292024

7. 11. 81


739

"

4000

0292024

7. 11. 81

"



740

"

4000

0292024

7. 11. 81

"



741

"

4000

0292024

7. 11. 81

"



744

"

4000

0292024

7. 11. 81 "



1089

15. 2. 84

12250

501177,78

15. 2. 84

Indian Bank




1290

16. 8. 84

7000

0326404

21. 8. 84

BOB Ltd.



1296

22. 8. 84

7000

326404

-do-



2199

23. 4. 86

41500

LB-37 (Transfer from)



2844

2. 7. 87

18750

UB-1 Jhandewalan Tower



(Transfer from)



2846

2. 7. 87

9000

Cash


2929

21. 7. 87

9000

Cash



2940

24. 7. 87

1625

Cash



_______



TOTAL

141125





(533) IN Suit No. 3112/96 Mr. Jagan Nath Grover and Mr. Ajay Garg have claimed the relief of specific performance for 440 sq. ft. in the Middle Basement on the basis of agreement dated 7. 11. 1981. The rate mentioned is Rs. 325. 00 per sq. ft. Along with the plaint, in Annexure A the details of payment are given in the Following terms: DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE BY SH. J. N.



grover LOWER BASEMENT - 38


R. No. date Amount (Rs.) cheque No. Date bank



730. 7. 11. 81 5000 0045634 7. 11. 81bob Ltd.



1091 15. 2. 84 43875 501177,78 15. 2. 84 Indian Bank



1298 22. 8. 84 14000 0326404 21. 8. 84 BOB Ltd.



1934 5. 11. 85 24611. 50 by adjustment



2242 5. 4. 86 12000 dd United Oriental Bank



711638 14. 1. 86



2200 23. 4. 86 20000 lb-37 Barakhamba Road -



(Transfer from)





2930 21. 7. 87 11000 056388 20. 7. 87 P. N. B.



____________



TOTAL 120486. 50



____________



By transer to Flat No. LB-18-5000



____________



Total amount 115486. 50


____________



Here also in the allotment letter Ex. P. 2 the same cheque 0045364 for Rs. 5,000. 00 is relied upon for paying the advance. Mr. J. N. Grover is examined as Public Witness. I on the same date i. e. 13. 2. 1997. Ex. P. 3 is receipt No. 1298 dated 22. 8. 1984 for cheque No. 0326404 in Suit No. 3112/96. Ex. P. 3 is with reference to same cheque 036404 which is marked as Ex. P. 9 in Suit No. 3111/96 and the receipt No. 1296. That means for the same cheque Ex. P. 3 in Suit No. 3112 bearing receipt No. 1298 is issued and Ex. P. 9 receipt No. 1296 is issued for the same cheque. Ex. P. 4 in Suit No. 3112/96 is the receipt No. 1091 dated 15. 2. 1984. It is mentioned in the receipt by two cheques 501177 and 501178 dated 15. 2. 1984 amounts have been paid. . The same two cheques are subject matter of receipt No. 1089 Ex. P. 14 dated 15. 2. 1984 in Suit No. 3111/96. The same two cheques also the subject matter of receipt No. 1090 Ex. P. 9 dated 12. 2. 1984 in Suit No. 3113/96. In Suit No. 3113/96 Mr. Jagan Nath Grover, Ms. Santosh Chawla and Mr. Sanjay have claimed the relief of specific performance for 450 sq. ft. in the Middle Basement on the basis of agreement dated 7. 11. 1981. The rate mentioned is Rs. 325. 00 per sq. ft. Along with the plaint, in Annexure A the details of payment are given in the following terms: details OF PAYMENTS MADE BY SH. J. N. GROVER :



lower BASEMENT - 39





R. No. Date Amount (Rs.) Cheque No. Date Bank



729. 7. 11. 81 5000 0045634 7. 11. 81 BOB Ltd.



1305. 29. 8. 84 9750 Cash



1410 14. 12. 84 7312 0333436 14. 12. 84 "



1388 5. 12. 84 14312 0333435 3. 12. 84 "



1255 26. 7. 84 12500 0326403 4. 7. 84 "



1488 8. 2. 85 7313. 50 0334439 4. 2. 85 "



1090 12. 2. 84 43875 501177,78 15. 2. 84 Indian Bank



1933 5. 11. 85 14625 187466 5. 11. 85 "


2699 29. 5. 87 30000 LB-9 Jhandewalan Tower



(Transfer from)



2707 30. 5. 87 9000 Cash



2733 5. 6. 87 9000 Cash



2737 6. 6. 87 3250 Cash



___________



165937. 50



Less By transfer





LB-36 - 5000. 00



___________



Total 160937. 50




In this case also Mr. Jagan Nath Grover was examined as Public Witness 1 on the same date i. e. 13. 2. 1997. In this case also for payment of advance of Rs. 5,000. 00 the same cheque No. 45634 is marked as Ex. P. 15 and receipt No. 729. The same receipt NO. 729 is marked as Ex. P. 4 in Suit No. 3111/96. The plaintiffs have played fraud by manipulating the records and as pointed out by the Supreme Court in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and Others, (1994) I SCC I that claims of such persons should be rejected in limine and, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, all the four suits stand dismissed with no costs. The plaintiffs in these suits (except the suits of Jagan Nath Grover Group), however, cannot be lefthigh and dry. I feel that in the intere

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
sts of justice, they should atleast be given the principal amount they had paid to the builders. The claimants whose names are found in Annexure G and H (except Rajiv Gupta Group) shall also be at liberty to institute proceedings against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the monies paid by them. Out of those whose names are found in the two Annexures who have filed suits and who have proved their payments are entitled to the payment from the common pool. The Skipper Bhawan Flat Buyers' Association had filed Suit No. 1086/92 against Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and its five Directors for the following reliefs: " (i) a decree for mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos. 1,3 to 7 directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 68,95,911. 78ps. with interest @ 14% p. a. from May, 1988 to Landdo, as conversion charges received by them from the plaintiffs. (ii) a decree for mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendant No. 1,3 to 7 to pay the electric charges collected by them from plaintiffs to NDMC for tile installation of the sub-station in the said project. (iii) a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants restraining them from transferring or selling or parting with possession to anyone, the car parking spaces in the basements and refuge area on the 5th, 7th and 10th Floors of the said project. (iv) a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants from reducing the size, location and floors of the Flats of the plaintiffs. (v) preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants according to law directing rendition of accounts by the defendants in respect of the amounts collected by the defendants, thereafter final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. " In view of the fact that the Committee had considered the claims of the agreement holders and provided for the payment of the L and D. O. charges by the builder and directions have been issued by me here for the payment of the amounts dues to the Government of India there is no need to try this suit. The Association also rightly did not think it fit to proceed with the suit. Suit No. 1086/92 stands dismissed as being unnecessary. (534) THE Union of India represented by the Ministry of Urban Development through Land and Development Officer, New Delhi, has filed Suit No. 2341/87 (Union of India v. Savitri Devi and Others) against the co-owners of the property (17 in number). Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. claiming the following reliefs: " (a) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants restraining them, their servants, agents, employees, contractors/ labourers from proceeding with the further construction over the property in suit bearing No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi till they are evicted with due process of law. And further restraining the defendants and their agents from Nos. 1 to 17 from encumbering the property in suit in any manner whatsoever i. e. sale, lease, sub-lease, mortgage etc. " It will suffice to notice subsequent events and there is no need to go into the details in view of the order passed by this Court on 16. 5. 1988. Keeping in mind all the aspects of the case, this Court directed the builder to pay Rs. 60,57,870. 00 with interest @ 14% per annum from 27. 3. 1987. Relying on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the caseof Express Newspaper's Private Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1986 S. C. 872 that the remedy of the Government under the circumstances is to file a suit for the recovery of the conversion charges. Kirpal J. (as His Lordship then was) said : "it will follow from the aforesaid that the Government cannot recover the amount of conversion charges except by filing a civil suit. If a civil suit is filed, the defendants would have an opportunity of challenging the correctness of the demand. It may be that under the contract the conversion charges arc payable to the plaintiff. In fact, during the course of the arguments, Mr. Anand did not seriously contest this. The only serious contest is with regard to the quantum of the conversion charges. The conversion charges are required to be calculated according to the terms of the lease deed. Whether the demand had been calculated in accordance with the said terms is a matter which has really to be gone into. The Supreme Court in Express Newspapers case clearly opined that in order to recover the money a suit should be filed and the Supreme Court restrained the Union of India from taking any steps from terminating the lease. (535) IN the present case, the plaintiffs have not sued for the recovery of the said money. The claim of the plaintiff is that without paying the conversion charges the defendants cannot construct. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the construction is otherwise prohibited in the area. The building plans of the defendants have been sanctioned by the New Delhi Municipal Committee. According to the plaintiff the plans should also have been got approved by the Land and Development Officer. The plaintiffs, as is evident from the correspondence on record, are willing to accord approval, but are wanting their pound of flesh, namely. Rs. 60,57,870. 00 being the conversion charges plus 14% interest thereon. Mr. Dutt also states that revised ground rent will have to be paid. That is not the subject matter of dispute in this case. " (536) THE learned Judge issued the following directions: "in the aforesaid background, looking at the interest of all the parties concerned, including those who are not before the Court, namely, the buyers of the Flat who have invested more Rs. 6 crores in the building, I think it will be proper to permit the construction of the building to be completed, but at the same time, safeguards the interests of the plaintiff. I, therefore, direct that the defendants would be entitled to carry out the construction of the building by paying, under protest, the demand of the plaintiffs, namely. Rs. 60,57,780 / - plus interest thereon at the rate of 14% as claimed in the letter dated 27th March 1987 of the plaintiff, the total amount of which cometo Rs. 68,95,911. 78 plus future interest at the rate of 14% thereon by paying quarterly instalments of Rs. 10 lakhs, till the claim of the plaintiff is paid. This is subject to the further condition that the defendants will not in any way part with the physical possession of any portion of the building till the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff is paid to them. The first instalment of Rs. 10,00,000. 00 will be split into two i. e. of Rs. 5 lakhs each and on the payment of the initial Rs. 5 lakhs, the defendants will be entitled to commence construction. " (537) THE Committee had noted : "after the above-mentioned order was passed, cheques of Rs. 10 lakhs were issued by the Builder and encashed by the Landdo. Subsequently 33 cheques were sent by the Builder which were dishonoured. (A contempt petition has been filed by the Landdo and a criminal case has also been filed in this regard). On 11. 10. 92, we summoned the Land and Development Officer to ascertain his position in the matter. The Officer stated that in accordance with the abovementioned order of the High Court, the Builder had issued certain post-dated cheques which had been dishonoured. Thereafter, the President of India reentered the building. The Landdo stated that now the demand of conversion charges was Rs. 14,80,86,305. 00. On the same day i. e. on 11. 10. 92, we also summoned the Chief Architect, N. D. M. C. and the Chief Fire Officer of the Delhi Fire Service. From the discussion we held with them, it is clear to us that as long as the matter is not settled with the Landdo, no other authority will consider the completion plan of the building. In other words, neither the N. D. M. C. nor the Urban Arts Commission are prepared to look into the matter unless the Landdo is paid. This is the crux of the problem of obtaining the Completion Certificate. It may be mentioned that the Builder is not interested in settling this liability. It is the Flat buyers who are suffering due to the delay in obtaining the Completion Certificate as they are not being able to enjoy the fruits of their investment. If a solution is not found to this problem, they will continue to suffer. Having regard to the special circumstances of this case, we suggest that the claim of the Landdo may be settled on the following terms, namely that the Landdo accept payment of the amount of Rs. 58,95,911. 00 (the Builder having already paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as aforesaid) plus simple interest thereupon at 14%p. a. as envisaged in the above-mentioned order of the High Court dated 16. 5. 88, in settlement of his claim. The interest may be calculated as envisaged in the said order from 27th June, 1989 to January 1, 1994 i. e. to date. This interest amount works out to Rs. 37,14,423. 00. Thus, the total payment that may be made to the Landdo is Rs. 96,10,334. 00. In our opinion the claim of the Landdo should be settled on these terms. This being the subject matter of a pending suit we do not wish to make any further comments on this matter. " (538) THE Government of India in its written submission had stated that the conversion charges payable was Rs. 14,80,86,305. 00. This is very much on the high side and there is absolutely no justification on the part of the Union of India to make such a claim knowing fully well the facts of the case. The Government of India should as much be concerned as others who are interested in making the Complex functional and should render all help to enable the persons concerned to make the Complex fit for business so that it may be in public interest and also would yield income to the Government. Whatever that has happened and whomsoever is responsible for the present situation, no one can prevent vicissitudes in life. We have to march forward to do something constructive and useful to the society. If the Government is to file a suit it will take its own course and the persons concerned would put forth their defence and one cannot predict with any amount of certainty when a final decision would be taken. Therefore, it will be prudent to proceed on the basis that the quantum fixed by this Court by order dated 16. 5. 1988 to be the correct amount. It may also be noticed that the Government of India had not challenged the correctness of this order. The builder had paid Rs. 10 lakhs in the year 1988. The balance was Rs. 58,95,911. 78 ps. Some arrangement has to be made for payment to the Government of India. It is very obvious now that the builder would not pay. The order passed by this Court on 16. 5. 1988 had not been complied with by the builder. That the Government of India is entitled to the sum of Rs. 58,95,911. 78 ps. with future interest cannot be disputed. This Court fixed the rate of interest at 14% per annum on 16. 5:1988. Naturally the rate of interest cannot be the same and it has to be increased. In the interests of justice, I am of the view that the rate could be fixed @ 18% per annum from 16. 5. 1988 on the sum of Rs. 58,95,911. 78 ps. upto the date of payment. If the amount is not paid the Government of India, in the peculiar circumstances of this case the suit shall stand decreed for the sum of Rs. 58,95,911. 78 ps. with interest at 18% per annum from 17. 5. 1988 till the date of payment and the Government of India shall be entitled to proceed against the property 22, Barakhamba Road for the realisation of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. The allotments made shall stand automatically cancelled and no one shall be entitled to make any claim whatsoever. (539) BEFORE issuing necessary directions to the allottees to deposit money in the Court, one aspect is to be considered is the suggestion given by the N. D. M. C. It has stated that the following formalities should be complied with for obtaining completion certificate: " (i) No objection certificate from Land and Development Office. (ii) No objection certificate from Chief Fire Officer. (iii) No objection certificate from Delhi Urban Art Commission. (iv) No objection from Civil Aviation Department regarding the height. (v) No objection certificate from Chief Engineer (Electrical), NDMC regarding the Electric Sub Station. (vi) Removal of unauthorised construction in areas in excess of permissible norms in the building. " (540) TO make the Complex vibrant with activities, money is required. The Complex should be a modern one in the Capital. If the allottees are earnest about depositing the amount directed by this Court, necessary arrangements could be made for making the Complex a good one in the locality. Each of the allottees shall be given a floor plan showing the number of the floor and the area allotted which would help them enjoying space without any disturbance from the neighbours avoiding any kind of litigation. Each one of the allottees shall be provided with the area fully covered with regular supply of electricity, water, fire fighting facility, Elevators facility and they could carry on business the moment they are put in possession on a turn key basis, as it were. The allottees shall be entitled to assign their rights with reference to the whole areas allotted. The allottees and the assigness shall file joint application in this Court for recognising the assignment to get the names of the assignees recorded as allottees. It is made dear that the allotee shall not be entitled to assign part of the portion allotted retaining the other part. The number of the allottees shall remain the same. The agreement holders had paid the builder at the rates ranging between Rs. 325. 00 tors. 900. 00 orthereaboutsbetween 1977and 1986. The money paid by them had gone into the drain, as it were, and we cannot go ahead if we bemoan or lament over the same. If we attempt to take steps to recover the money from the builder it will be Brutumfulmen. Therefore, it is the lot of the allottees to bear the brunt of paying and enjoy the pleasure of being in the Complex, if they want to do business in the Complex. The question naturally arises what is the rate to be adopted for the allottees to deposit. The question may appear vexed but we have to face the situation with hope and fortitude: The Committee had noted that at the time of its Final Report in the year 1994 that the rate was Rs. 5,000. 00 per sq. ft. in the locality. That the property is in a prime location cannot be disputed by anybody. The estimate of the Committee might have been a modest one. Some of the plaintiffs in the suits have stated that the running rate in 1996 was Rs. 25,000. 00 per sq. ft. Having regard to the overall view of the matter, I fix the rate at Rs. 3,250. 00 per sq. ft. I am of the view that all concerned have to make some amount of sacrifice so that those who do not get allotments do not go empty handed and they should not be burdened with unnecessary litigation against the builders, which one knows that the proceedings will be of no use eventually. The allottees will be given Flats as modern as possible and they need not have to spend any money to make partition walls etc. The allottees would get all the amenities to run their business. In this way, the allottees do not stand to lose. They cannot also have any grievance that they had already paid money to the builders and they are asked over again. The prevailing rate in the locality is between Rs. 20,000. 00 and Rs. 25,000. 00 per sq. ft. The allottees are getting Flats in good condition @ Rs. 3,250. 00 per sq. ft. plus the amount which they have. already paid. Therefore, they stand to gain a lot. Further, in public interest considering the hardship suffered by the agreement holders, I have fixed the conversion charges payable to the Government as per. the orders passed by this Court 9 years ago on 16. 5. 1988. Therefore, the allottees cannot have any grievance at all in paying @ Rs. 3,250. 00 per sq. ft. for the space allotted to them. The persons who are not getting the allotments, as I have already mentioned, cannot recover anything from the builders Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. All those who have approached the Court before and after the final report, who are not getting allotments, would be paid the principal amount. They cannot claim any interest on the principal amount and they should feel satisfied that under the circumstances they are atleast getting the principal amount. Those who had not filed any suits are at liberty to initiate proceedings against Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of the monies paid. The rate is fixed taking into account the payments made by the allottees to the builder and it is in addition to and over and above what the agreement holders had agreed to pay to the builder. The allottees shall deposit the amount as noted against each of them in the table below on or before 6th of November 1997. The Pay Order/draft shall be in the name of the Registrar, High Court of Delhi. The registry shall keep a list of the depositors and shall forward the list to the Court on the 7th of November, 1997. GROUND FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available - 9054) S. No. no. in Name sq. ft. suit Amount to be ann. I allotted no. deposited __________________________________________________________________________ Rs. 1. 1. Jasvinder Singh 440 e. P. 142/91 14,30,000. 00 2. 5. Vikas Bansal 500 3797/92 16,25,000. 00 3. 6. Raj Dulari Trakru 1000 1743/91 32,50,000. 00 representing through Trakru Housing Corpn. 4. 7. S. K. Sachdeva 1050 1943/96 34,12,500. 00 5. 9. C. R. Gambhir 2000 2056/92 65,00,000. 00 6. 10. Virender Bahri 500 3688/92 16,25,000. 00 7. 11. Bansi Lal Nijhawan 500 2191/96 16,25,000. 00 (B. L. Nijhawan) 8. 12. Tube Sales (P)Ltd. 760 3414/96 24,70,000. 00 9. 13. Rajat Ghai 150 2990/92 4,87,500. 00 10. -- Vijendra Singh 1060 324/90 34,45,000. 00 (owner) FIRST FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available - 5500) S. No. no. in Name sq. ft. suit Amount to be ann. I allotted no. deposited Rs. 1. 32. geeta Anand 440 1346/92 14,30,000. 00 2. 34. mukul Gupta & his 700 3970/92 22,75,000. 00 mother Smt. Kunj Gupta 3. 35&38. Niryat Pvt. Ltd. 900 3075/90 29,25,000. 00 4. 37. narindra P. Singh 500 701/91 16,25,000. 00 5. 39. balram Bhasin 500 3796/92 16,25,000. 00 6. 40&41. Oriole Exports 900 3043/90 29,25,000. 00 7. 43. prabhat Mehta 440 1945/96 14,30,000. 00 8. 44. manish Garg 160 3662/92 5,20,000. 00 9. - vijendra Singh 900 324/90 29,25,000. 00 SECOND FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available - 7460) S. No. no. in name sq. ft. suit Amounttobe ann. I allotted no. deposited __________________________________________________________________________ Rs. 1. 50. sarabjit Singh 350 148/93 11,37,500. 00 2. 51. pushpa Kapoor 225 2135/96 7,31,250. 00 3. - atam Prakash 1500 2907/96 48,75,000. 00 (owner) 4. - gayatri Devi 2000 2908/96 65,00,000. 00 (owner) 5. - atul Kumar and 2000 2909/96 65,00,000. 00 two others. THIRD FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available - 7460. 342) S. No. no. in name sq. ft. suit Amounttobe ann. I allotted no. deposited Rs. 1. 52. deena Paints 750 2423/96 24,37,500. 00 2. 53. divya Industries 500 2424/96 16,25,000. 00 3. 54 vinod Khanna 500 3668/92 16,25,000. 00 4. 55. shamsher Singh 600 2285/96 1950,000. 00 5. 56. dr. S. Bir Singh 500 3781/92 16,25,000. 00 6. 57 j. S. Kohli 700 2529/96 22,75,000. 00 7. 58. r. Sehgal 700 3003/96 22,75,000. 00 8. 59. rajiv Orhi 500 3610/90 1625,000. 00 9. 62. s. indenit Singh 500 3044/96 16,25,000. 00 10. 63. swaran Kumari 750 3814/92 24,37,500. 00 11. - raj Kumari 1500 2884/96 48,75,000. 00 FOURTH FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available - -7460) S. No. no. in name sq. ft. suit Amount to be ann. I allotted no. deposited __________________________________________________________________________ Rs. 1. 72. manmohan Nath 4085 2271/96 13276250. 00 2. - vijendra Singh 3375 324/90 10968750. 00 (owner) FIFTH FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available - 6740) S. No. no. in name sq. ft. suit Amount to be ann. I allotted no. deposited __________________________________________________________________________ Rs. 1. 84. divya Enterprises 750 2125/96 24,37,500. 00 2. 86. ms Cherry Aggarwal 500 3621/92 16,25,000. 00 (deed.) (L/rs Rattan kumar Aggarwal and mrs. Shakuntala Aggarwal). 3. 87. jaswinder Singh 500 2180/96 16,25,000. 00 4. 88. bimal Sangari 140 2242/96 4,55,000. 00 5. 90 varsha Bhatia 140 2866/92 4,55,000. 00 6. 92. neeru/aaina Jain 200 1683/92 6,50,000. 00 7. 15. nanak A. Bhatia 160 2098/96 4,61,500. 00 prop. of Shaloo Agencies 8. 16. global Aviation 623 2212/96 20,24,753. 00 services Pvt. Ltd. 9. 17. ranjit Kaur 500 4491/92 16,25,000. 00 10. 18. dr. (Mrs.) Sudarshan 360 3689/92 ll,70,000. 00 kapoor 11. 20. nidhi Jain & 500 2758/92 16,25,000. 00 abha Sonthalia 12. 22. smt. Prem Gurcharan 500 2255/96 16,25,000. 00 singh & Mr. Paramjit Singh 13. 24. d. K. Gupta 300 2184/96 9,75,000. 00 14. 25. kamlesh Vasdev 435 2394/96 14,13,755. 00 15. 26. g. Dubey 325 2537/96 10,56,350. 00 16. 27. Himanshu Gupta 500 2706/92 16,25,000. 00 SIXTH FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available -7460) S. No. No. 1n Name sq. ft. suit Amount to be Ann. I allotted No. deposited 1. 93. arjun Singh Gupta 550 1931/96 17,87,500. 00 2. 94. dr. Ushasikka 550 1926/96 17,87,500. 00 3. 95 bhim Sen Gupta 750 1928/96 24,37,500. 00 4. 96. prianka Mehta 590 2163/96 19,17,500. 00 5. 97. karan Mehta 590 2162/96 19,17,500. 00 6. 98. ruby Khanna 580 1879/96 18,85,000. 00 7. 99. inderjit Singh 750 2161/96 24,37,500. 00 8. 100. n. Narsimhan 550 1189/91 17,87,500. 00 9. 102. sarabjit Singh 500 3620/92 16,25,000. 00 10. 103. anil K. Arora 424 1935/96 13,78,000. 00 11. 104. arvind Thirani 1000 2256/96 32,50,000. 00 12. 105. maqsoodan Lal 600 3115/92 19,50,000. 00 13. - atam Prakash 1000 2907/96 3250,000. 00 SEVENTH FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available - 6740) S. No. no. in name sq. ft. suit amount to be ann. I allotted no. deposited __________________________________________________________________________ rs. 1. 118. usha Jain 550 2312/96 17,87,500. 00 2. 119. krishna Kapoor 550 2902/96 1787500. 00 d. K. Kapoor and ashwani Kapoor 3. 120. veena Bajaj 750 815/91 2437500. 00 4. 121. o. P. Bajaj, father 750 813/91 24,37,500. 00 of Ms Shalini Bajaj, vandana Bajaj and dinesh Bajaj 5. 122. vipin Kapur 750 2286/96 2437500. 00 6. 123. pratibha Mukhi 500 2269/96 1625,000. 00 7. 124. virender Bahri 550 3752/92 1787500. 00 & Sons. 8. 125. kiran Kamal Bhasin 500 1804/92 1625,000. 00 170 170 the DELHI LAW TIMES 1997 9. 128. rahul Gupta 400 1873/96 13,00,000. 00 10. 129. vinod Kapoor 550 693/91 17,87,500. 00 11. 130. haijinder S. Lamba 140 2215/96 4,55,000. 00 & A. P. Singh 12. 131. sona Enterprises 140 3070/92 4,55,000. 00 13. - amarjit Singh 550 2354/96 17,87,500. 00 EIGHTH FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available -7460) S. No. no. in name sq. ft. suit amounttobe ann. 1 allotted no. deposited rs. 1. 140. sameer Arora 502 2457/92 16,31,500. 00 2. 141. l. Chand Chimnani 514 2812/96 16,70,500. 00 3. 144. ritika & two 140 2084/96 4,55,000. 00 others. 4. - rupender Kumari 300 1918/91 9,75,000. 00 5. . - jagdish Prasad 300 1789/26 9,75,000. 00 6. - rajiv Gupta Group 5360 30 suits 17420000. 00 9th FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available - 7460) S. No. no. in name sq. ft. suit amount to be ann. l allotted no. deposited rs. 1. - indu Anand 525 2465/96 17,06,250. 00 2466/96 2. - rajiv Gupta Group 6835 30 suits 22213750. 00 TENTH FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available- 6928) S. No. no. in name sq. ft. suit amount to be ann. 1 allotted no. deposited rs. 1. 151. sona Enterprises 140 3069/96 455,000. 00 2. 153. upinder Chadha 500 1978/96 1625,000. 00 3. 154. m. L. Talwar & Co. 500 1741/92 16,25,000. 00 4. 155. bharat Medicos 500 1803/92 1625,000. 00 5. 156. s. M. Diwan 470 2280/93 1527500. 00 6. 157. anupam Awasthi 502 2417/96 1631500. 00 7. 158. m. L. Talwar 140 1337/92 ' 455,000. 00 8. 159. vandna Aggarwal 140 1335/92 4,55,000. 00 171 9. 160. spring Valley Fin. 900 1788/93 29,25,000. 00 10. 161. golden Polyester 760 1790/93 24,70,000. 00 11. 162. golden Cylinder 750 1789/93 24,37,500. 00 12. 163. nirmal Puri 225 1308/92 7,31,250. 00 13. 164. subhash Chopra 464. 2289/96 15,08,000. 00 14. 165. jit Babal Singh 300 4289/92 9,75,000. 00 15. 166. meera Khanna & Sons 730 908/91 22,72,500. 00 ELEVENTH FLOOR (Total sq. ft. available - 7460. 342) S. No. no. in name sq. ft. suit amount to be ann. 1 allotted no. deposited rs. _ 1. - william Jacks & 7460. 342 728/87 24246111. 50 co. (541) AFTER the deposit is made by the allottees, necessary directions will be issued for getting the services done by a contractor and appointing an Administrator for supervising the work and such other things that are necessary for the completion of the Complex. The list of the persons who would begetting refund is given below: GROUND FLOOR S. No. suit No. name amount rs. 1. 2890/96 bharat Securities (P) Ltd. 9,00,000. 00 2. mrs. Shashi Bala 1947/96 khare. & Others. 22,14,000. 00 UPPER GROUND FLOOR S. No. suit No. name amount rs. 1. 4110/92 mrs. Sanjeev Malhoral, 51,000. 00 2. 1957/96 a. R. Wig 3,94,230. 00 3. 3686/92 nagarjuna Finance ltd. 6,40,000. 00 4. 3687/92 nagarjuna Finance ltd. 6,40,000. 00 5. 2253/96 mrs. Rajinder Kaur 2,00,000. 00 FIRST FLOOR S. No. suit No. name amount 172 172 the DELHI LAW TIMES rs. 1. 126/91 s. Surjit Singh 91,200. 00 2. 2486/92 dohnill Tambaco co. (P) Ltd. 5,62,000. 00 3. 2490/92 laxmi Distributors ltd. 5,62,000. 00 4. 220/93 raj Overseas pvt. Ltd. 5,78,000. 00 5. 2326/96 baldev Singh and his mother mrs. Avtar 1,20,000. 00 6. 2181/96 mrs. Prem Gulati 70,000. 00 SECOND FLOOR S. No. suit No. name amount rs. 1. 2308/91 mrs. Vridhu Selh 2,45,850. 00 THIRD FLOOR S. No. suit No. name amount rs. 1. 3068/96 sona Enterprises 67,960. 00 2. 3974/91 pramod Bhatia 4,12,669. 00 3. 2291/96 mrs. Surbhi Malhotra 2,75,300. 00 4. 2290/96 mrs-Krishna Bhanotra & Mrs-Poonam Sharma 2,38,000. 00 5. 1955/96 udit Chaudhaiy S/o bharat Chaudhari 1,92,500. 00 6. 1963/96 hargovind V. Narain 1,92,500. 00 7. 2035/96 col. Bhagwan Chandra shukla 1,05,000. 00 8. 2330/96 dinesh Aggarwal 64,080. 00 4th FLOOR S. No. suit No. name amount rs. 1. 3836/90 d. Singh & Sons 3,96,250. 00 2. 2356/92 n. S. Ahluwalia 4,12,994. 60 3. 2292/96 aarun Kapoor 2,75,300. 00 4. 1880/96 pramod Khanna 2,52,030. 00 173 5. 2356/96 mrs. Man Mohankaur 2,24,200. 00 6. 2213/96 laxmi Devi 1,01,905. 75 5th FLOOR 1. 2952/96 marine Container -. services 8,40,000. 00 2. 2131/96 har Swaroop ' 1,80,000. 00 3. 2203/96 j. T. B. Financial services (P) Ltd. 10,54,000. 00 6th FLOOR 1. 3297/91 indira Duggal 1,71,000. 00 2. 2125/94 sashi Bhushan 2,82,784. 00 3. 2192/96 hindustan Oil 2,82,074. 00 4. 3071/96 sona Enterprises 67,960. 00 5. 2991/92 mrs. Anju Ghai 1,78,125. 00 6. 2086/96 mrs. Sarojini chaudhary 4,89,610. 00 7. 2195/96 arvind Sharma 1,57,557. 00 8. 1191/91 inder Pardeshi 3,65,750. 00 7th FLOOR 1. 1576/92 mrs. Indu Grover 3,54,675. 00 2. 1573/92 r. N. Grover, Prop. g. S. T. Corpn. 2,36,325. 00 3. 2993/92 rajat Ghai 3,63,375. 00 4. 2605/96 mrs. Usha Chopra 2,35,605. 00 5. 1819/92 arubha Pahwa 3,35,000. 00 6. 3912/92 r. K. Arora 3,50,000. 00 7. 2092/96 k. D. Mehra 2,50,000. 00 8. 2133/96 mrs. Bimla Devi,prop. mahesh Metal Works 2,50,000. 00 9. 2194/96 s. C. K. Bajaj 2,50,000. 00 8th FLOOR 1. 1087/92 manjit Singh Riky 1,90,000. 00 2. 2569/96 mrs. Bimla Rani 2,56,000. 00 3. 1831/91 kj. Arora 45,000. 00 174 IOTH FLOOR 1. 1736/92 m. L. Talwar Associates prop. M. L. Talwar 25,000. 00 2. 1354/96 mrs. Rupinder Kumari 2,75,310. 00 3. 1934/96 industrial Foam ltd. 3,50,000. 00 4. 2410/96 mrs. Surinder Kaur 75,000. 00 5. 120/91 hardip Singh 3,58,400. 00 6. 2016/96 mrs. Kamla Manchanda 4,33,650. 00 7. 2191/94 ms Priya Mehta 1,42,250. 00 8. 2313/96 giriraj mrs. Rajini Gupta m/s. Chhabra Steel tubes 4,22,550. 00 9. 1623/92 rama Leasing Co. ltd. 71,89,790. 00 UPPER BASEMENT S. No. suit No. name amount rs. 1. 2128/96 t. R. Sachdeva 1,37,981. 00 2. 1827/92 vijay Chibber 1,36,419. 00 3. 3011/92 ravinder Kaur chahal 1,89,267. 00 4. 3858/92 joseph Verghese 75,000. 00 5. 2095/92 meera Bargodia 1,23,620. 00 6. 2093/92 r. K. Misra 2,44,700. 00 7. 2058/96 p. P. Khanna vivek Khanna mrs. Kiran Khanna 2,69,155. 00 8. 2005/96 jitender Kampani 65,644. 00 9. 2004/96 manorma Jalani 3,09,661. 00 10. 2097/96 devinder Pal Singh 1,61,279. 00 11. 2490/96 vijay,m. K. and murli Khemchandani 1,16,449. 00 12. 2308/96 smt. Maya Devi smt. Anjana Devi 175 smt. Meera Devi 1,15,690. 00 13. 1960/96 vijay Sathi 83,390. 00 14. 2199/96 g. S. Sharma 88,110. 00 15. 2682/96 mrs. Rachna Gupta 1,84,500. 00 16. 1927/96 shiv Nath Neb 61,539. 00 17. 2363/96 mrs. Rekha Verma 1,47,300. 00 18. 2365/96 r. K. Verma 1,32,569. 00 smt. Saria Rani Verma 19. 2811/96 mrs. Manjula Rani Gupta ms Tanu Gupta vinay Chimnani mrs. Marnta Wadhwa 4,05,000. 00 20. 2186/96 mrs. Gurdeep Kaur 97,425. 00 mrs. Joginder Pasricha 21. 2185/96 mrs. Sudha Kaur harinder Singh 1,49,037. 00 22. 2187/96 mrs. Gurdeep Kaur 97,425. 00 mrs-Joginder Pasriha 23. 2272/96 mrs. V. K. Khosla raj Nath Khosia 131,310. 00 24. 2179/96 ch. H. S. Lamba a. P. Singh 1,13,962. 00 25. 1929/96 arun Verma anil Verma 1,82,521. 00 26. 2107/96 maj. Gen. Atma Singh 56,200. 00 27. 2118/96 p. S. Narula & sons (HUF) 1,36,727. 00 28. 2327/96 jayant Kumar Monga 1,58,500. 00 29. 2979/96 ms Champa Dua ashim Dua 2,65,495. 00 30. 2684/96 ravi Gupta 12,000. 00 31. 3002/96 maj. B. M. Singh 98,200. 00 32. 3001/96 cdr. Amar Singh kuldeep Singh 91,170. 00 33. 2309/96 lt. Col. Rajinder 176 176 the DELHI LAW TIMES kumar 1,60,212. 00 34. 1784/96 vimla Jyotsna mittal 1,47,300. 00 35. 2978/96 vnita World Travels through N. R. Bhatia, partner 3,28,612. 00 36. 2003/96 mrs. Sharda Rohtagi 1,51,597. 00 LOWER BASEMENT S. No. suit No. name amount rs. 1. 3110/96 mrs. Rajni Rustogi 85,400. 00 r. K. Rustogi 2. 3114/96 shanta Arya 1,07,024. 00 surit Arya 3. 2182/96 k. G. B. Properties & Consultants 1,17,295. 00 4. 3107/96 s. K. Bajaj 80,112. 00 5. 3108/96 d. B. Bhagat 2,00,000. 00 6. 2117/94 smt. Madhu Khosla 1,26,065. 00 7. 2538/96 urmila Malhotra 1,05,721. 00 8. 2318/96 perfect Power System1, 69,910. 00 Prop. Mrs. Kiran Shiv Mohan 9. 2331/96 j. N Seghal Trust 98,625. 00 through Trustee romesh Kumar Seghal 10. 2332/96 mrs. Kamla Wati 1,21,957. 00 seghal 11. 2214/96 hamand Singh 1,78,233. 00 12. 1930/96 mrs. Sheil Bala Jain sanjay Jain rajesh Jain 2,04,675. 00 13. 2136/96 k. G. B. Properties & Consultants prop. Amir Singh bhatia 1,17,295. 00 14. 2296/96 s. Waryam Singh 1,10,580. 00 15. 2315/96 perfect Power system 2,24,420. 00 Prop. Mrs. Kiran Shiv Mohan 177 16. 2317/96 perfect Power system 2,69,750. 00 prop. Mrs. Kiran Shiv Mohan 17. 1123/93 chaturaan industries 20,00,000. 00 18. 1739/92 madan Lal Talwar 4,95,000. 00 REFUND OF CAR PARKING SPACE S. No. suit No. name amount rs. 1. 2982/92 mrs. Anju Ghai 15,000. 00 2. 2509/96 mrs. Renuka Gupta 15,000. 00 3. 107/97 ram Narain 15,000. 00 4. 3045/96 mrs. Upma Arora 15,000. 00 5. 2288/96 subash Chopra dhruv Chopra 12,000. 00 total: Rs. 3,73,44,786. 00 List of the persons whose claims have been rejected is beow : LIST OF CLAIMS REJECTED GROUND FLOOR S. No. suit No. name 1. - b. M. Sachdeva did not appear 2. 2594/91 mrs. Vinod Kumari Jain -do- 3. 698/97 mrs. Ravinder Kaur -do- 4. ia. 1500/95 Ravinder Singh (minor) do- beneficiary Trust 5. j. K. Arora IAs-1456,1457,1463,1475/95. UPPER GROUND FLOOR S. No. suit No. name 1. 913/91 ravinder Kumar suit for injunction . Not willing to pay any addl. amount. 2. 1271/92 anurag Aggarwal FIRST FLOOR S. No. suit No. name 1. 2964/91 fateh Printing agreement not press proved. Suit 178 decreed against defendants for money. 2. methani Enterprises no suit filed 3. manu Electronics -do- 4. indu Tandon -do- 5. 62/95 savitri Devi did not appear. 6. asha Gulati no suit filed. SECOND FLOOR S. No. Suit No. name 1. mysore Electro no suitfiled. 2. 3095/92 rahul Bhatnagar claim rejected. money decree passed against defendants. 3. 1336/92 yoginder Raj agreement not proved. Money decree passed against defts. 4. 1898/92 ajay Luthra did not appear. THIRD FLOOR S. No. Suit No. name 1. kumud Malik no suit filed. 2. p. Oudhvir -do- 3. mrs. Champa Wati -do- 4. 2385/96 manohar Lal Sharda agreement not proved. 5. 2284/96 vijinder Singh not proved. 4th FLOOR S. No. Suit No. name 1. ms Bala Gupta no suit filed. 2. joginder Kumar -do- 5th FLOOR S. No. Suit No. name 1. ms Monika Gupta no suit filed 2. prem Chopra -do- SIXTH FLOOR S. No. Suit No. name 1. kailash Kathuria no suit filed SEVENTH FLOOR 179 S. No. suit No. name 1. - v. Kaira & Others no suit filed. 2. - pushpa Devi -do- 3. 1727/91 0m Prakash Chaubey did not appear. EIGHTH FLOOR S. No. suit No. name 1. - n. K. Arora no suit filed. 2. 2204/96 mrs. Kalpana Singhal did not appear. 3. jain Shudh Vanaspati 4. punjab & Sind Bank 9th FLOOR S. No. suit No. name 1. 3840/92 solan Beverages rejected on pvt. Ltd. merits. Decree for money passed. 2. 3413/92 satya Narain Gupta -do- 3. 3740/92 mrs. Surjeet Kaur -do- 4. 3741/92 surjeet Beverages pvt. Ltd. -do -. 5. 1142/92 mrs. lshwar Kaur -do- TENTH FLOOR S. No. suit No. name 1. - sanjeev Juneja no suit filed. 2. 1738/92 sanjay Talwar associates rejected. 3. - b. P. Seghal no suit filed. 4. 2575/96 jaswant Singh plaint rejected. LOWEJR BASEMENT S. No. suit No. name 1. 3109/96 jagan Nath Grover rejected kapil Grover lalit Grover pushplata 2. 3112/96 jagan Nath Grover ajay Grover rejected 3. 3111/96 jagan Nath Grover urmila Grover promila Grover rejected. 180 4. 3113/96 Jagan Nath Grover Santosh Chawla Sanjay Rejected. 132. persons are allotted flats, 119 persons get refund and the claims of 47 persons stand rejected. (542) THE possession of the property shall continue to be in the custody of the Court an ad per the directions given in November, 1996 the N. D. M. C. shall continue to have the security and keep the property intact until further orders. Monies deposited by the allottees shall not be subject to any attachment at the instance of any third party. (543) I am very happy to place on record my sincere appreciation of the cooperation extended to me by the learned Counsel for the parties and Major Gen. Joginder Singh, President and Col. Jaswant Singh, Vice President of the Flat Buyer's Association and also the staff of the Court who had been working strenuously. I am glad to note that the learned Counsel and the parties had responded willingly with great enthusiasm without any whipping up by the Court. (544) SUITS and I. As are disposed of in the above terms and in view of the position the CCPs stand dismissed. Post the matter for further directions on the 7th of November, 1997.
O R