Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction on 3 September, 2014
Bench: H.L. Dattu, Abhay Manohar Sapre
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFERRED CASE NO.113 OF 2006
(@ I.A.NO.140 IN S.L.P. (C) NO.21000 OF 1993)
B.P.S.MANGET AND ANR. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
M/S.SKIPPER TOWERS (P) LTD. ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The petitioners had filed Company Petition No.96/97, under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”), inter alia, requesting the Court to wind up the respondent company - M/s.Skipper Towers (P) Ltd., on the ground that the said company was unable to discharge its debts due to the petitioners. The petitioners had stated in the said Company Petition that the respondent-company owed them a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Seventy Six Thousand only), with interest and that the same had not been paid despite the service of statutory notice(s).
2. The learned Company Judge being of the opinion that it would be just and equitable to wind up the respondent-company had passed an order dated 02.09.2004 winding up of the respondent-company and for the appointment of an Official Liquidator. Be that as it may.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by 3. Ramana Venkata Ganti Date: 2014.09.15 16:41:21 IST
By an order passed by this Court in Special Leave Reason: Petition (Civil) No. 21000 of 1993, dated 07.08.2006, it was agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that it would be in 2 the interest of all concerned if the said Company Petition No.96/97 along with all other Company Applications pending before the High Court were transferred to this Court. Therefore, the aforesaid Company Petition No.96/97 along with all other company applications pending before the High Court had been transferred to this Court. This Court by its order dated 03.02.2014 had directed the office of the Claims Commissioner, which was setup to settle the claims of the genuine creditors/claimants in regard to the Skipper Group, to be wound up. By the said order dated 03.02.2014, the corpuses setup to satisfy the aforesaid claims which were lying with the Claims Commissioner so ordered to be wound up, were transferred to the Registry of this Court.
4. Pursuant to the letter received from the Admn. Officer Judl. (Co), Delhi High Court on 02.09.2014, this Court is informed that the respondent-company had deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) with the High Court of Delhi. The said amount is stated to be deposited in a fixed deposit with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. As of today, the amount lying in the F.D.R. is Rs.3,79,86,776/- (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Nine Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six only).
5. In view of the above, we direct the Registry of the High Court of Delhi to release the said amount in favour of the respondent-company, who had deposited the aforesaid amount, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 15 days' time from 3 the date of receipt of this Court’s order.
6. Shri Amarjit Singh Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-company was due to pay a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Seventy Six Thousand only) to the petitioners from the date of filing of the Company Petition. Therefore, a request is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the aforesaid amount, along with interest, may be directed to be paid to them by the respondent-company.
7. Shri Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-company, though has some reservations, would accept the request so made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. In view of the above, we direct the respondent-company to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) to the learned counsel for the petitioners in full and final settlement of all the claims, within four weeks' time from today.
9. Shri Basava Prabhu Patil, learned counsel for the respondent-company, on instructions, submits that his clients would not be pursuing the petition filed under Section 391 of the Act before the High Court. Since the present Transferred Case arises out of the said petition so filed, the said Transfer Case No.113 of 2006 is disposed of as having become unnecessary. 4
10. We make it clear that this order shall not be treated as precedent in any other case.
Ordered accordingly.
...................J. (H.L. DATTU) ...................J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 03, 2014.
5
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21000/1993
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR Respondent(s)
WITH T.C.(C) No. 113/2006
(With Office Report)
Date : 03/09/2014 This petition/case were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Sr.Adv.(A.C.) Ms.Mani Priya, Adv.
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Adv. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.
Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi,Adv. Md.Asfar Heyat, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv.(NP) Ms.Asha G.Nair, Adv.
Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Adv. For Ms.Sushma Suri, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv.(NP) Mr.R.K.Rathore, Adv.
Mr.C.K.Sharma, Adv.
Ms.Padma Laxmi Nigam, Adv. For Mr.D.S.Mahra, Adv. Mr.Ameet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma,Adv. Mr. B. K. Satija,Adv.(NP) 6 Mr.Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr.Adv. Mr.Rajendra Singhvi, Adv. Mr.K.K.L.Gautam, Adv. Mr. Brij Bhusan,Adv.
Mr. Deeptakirti Verma,Adv. Ms.Neha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu,Adv.(NP) Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv.(NP) Mr. Nischal Kumar Neeraj,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.(NP) Mr. Ravindra Kumar,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Bhalla,Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. Mr. Satyendra Kumar,Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri,Adv. Mr. V. K. Verma,Adv.(NP) M/s. Legal Options,Adv.(NP) Ms. Madhurima Tatia,Adv.(NP) M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co.,Adv.(NP) Respondent-in-person(NP) Ms.Sonia Dube, Adv.
Mr.S.Chakraborty, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R S.L.P.(C)NO.21000/1993:
Shri Dayan Krishnan, learned amicus curiae has filed a synopsis and list of dates along with a Memo, wherein he has enumerated the details which prompted this Court to appoint an amicus to effect the sale of assets of the respondent-Skipper group.7
This Court has been monitoring the sale of assets of the Skipper group and on several occasions, also appointed Commissioners, to call for the details of investors and the money they had invested in the respondent-Skipper Group. After verifying the claims, the learned Commissioners have duly distributed the money belonging to the investors.
After settling all the dues of the investors, the learned amicus has stated in his Memo that, this Court passed an order, for winding up the Office of the Claims Commission, dated 03.02.2014. By the said order, a sum of Rs.9,10,59,681/- (Rupees Nine Crore Ten Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty One only), being the corpus that remained after winding up of the Office of the Claims Commission, was transferred to the Registry of this Court.
The amount so transferred is presently now lying in a Fixed Deposit.
In the said synopsis, the learned amicus has requested that this Court determine appropriate ways and means to distribute the aforesaid amount.
After hearing all the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the present lis, on the last date of hearing, this Court had suggested that out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore only) could be equally distributed to five charitable institutions located in Delhi and that the balance amount may be deposited in a fixed deposit for a further period of six months’ time from today. The purpose of depositing the said balance amount for a further period of six months is that, if, for any reason, any other investor makes any claim against the respondent-Skipper Group, the balance amount may take care of its interest.
In order to facilitate this Court in distributing a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore only), we had requested Shri L.Nageshwara Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Dayan Krishnan, learned amicus to suggest five names of the charitable institutions for the consideration of this Court.
In view of the request so made by us, Shri L.Nageshwaya Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Dayan Krishnan, learned amicus have given the names of five charitable institutions. The names of the charitable institutions are not opposed by any learned counsel appearing on the opposite side. Therefore, we now direct the Registry to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore only) which is lying in a Fixed Deposit and equally distribute the money amongst the following five charitable institutions after obtaining due acknowledgement from them:
8
1. Institution for the Blind, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi – 110 024 Ph.011-26411915, 26216506
2. Udayan Care, 16/97A, Vikram Vihar, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi – 110 024 Ph.-011 46548105/06
3. Salaam Baalak Trust, 2nd Floor, DDA Community Centre, Gali Chandiwali, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055 Ph.-91-11-23584164, 23589305
4. NAZ Foundation (India) Trust, A-86, East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 065
5. The Spastic Society of Karnataka No.3655, 8th Cross, 13-F, Main, HAL 2nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 008 We hope and trust that all the aforementioned five institutions will utilise the amount in appropriate manner. We request the aforesaid institutions to file compliance report before the Registry of this Court as and when the said amount is utilised by them.
We further direct the Registry to re-invest the balance amount in a fixed deposit for a further period of six months’ time from today after paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) to the learned amicus curiae.
We record our deepest appreciation for the sincere efforts made by Shri Dayan Krishnan, learned amicus curiae in assisting the Court to bring the long drawn litigation to an end. I.A. No.201:
Notice, returnable in two weeks’ time. Call the matter after six months for further orders. 9 T.C.(C)No.113/2006:
The Transferred Case is dismissed as having become unnecessary, in terms of the signed order.
(G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Asstt.Registrar
(Signed order in T.C.(C)No.113/2006 is placed on file)