Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Supreme Court Bar Association ... vs Aftab Alam on 31 January, 2023
CPC 80/2022 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION Contempt Petition (C) No 80 of 2022 In Civil Appeal No 2818 of 2020 Supreme Court Bar Association Multi-State ...Petitioner Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited Versus Aftab Alam and Another ...Respondents WITH M.A. No.502 of 2022 In M.A. No.672 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No 2818 of 2020 & M.A. No.459 of 2022 In M.A. No.672 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No 2818 of 2020 ORDER
1 In terms of paragraph 3 of the order of this Court dated 3 September 2021, following the report which was submitted by Justice Gita Mittal on 17 August 2022, the work of repair to be carried out by the contractor would be under the overall supervision of WAPCOS Ltd and IIT Delhi.
2 Justice Gita Mittal has, in a report submitted to this Court on 17 August 2022, Signature Not Verified appended a draft agreement to be executed between the Supreme Court Bar Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2023.02.02 15:00:17 IST Reason: CPC 80/2022 2 Association Multi-State Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited 1; the Supreme Tower Apartments Owners Association 2; and M/s Purvanchal Construction Works Pvt Ltd. The report submitted by Justice Gita Mittal indicates that there was some difference of opinion with the contractor in regard to the terms of payment. However, during the course of the hearing, Mr Sanjoy Ghosh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contractor has fairly stated that the contractor agrees to the original terms of payment as embodied in paragraph 49 of the report submitted by Justice Gita Mittal, which is extracted below:
“Fees The fees for this work would be INR 30 lakhs + 18% GST to be paid to IIT Delhi in advance. In addition, IIT Delhi may also conduct site visits based on the request from the Client and as required based on the specific site conditions/situations. The charges of site visits should be paid additional to the INR 30 lakhs. The charges for site visit would be INR 2 lakhs per man- day + 18% GST, which has to be paid based on the actual number of visits.
Mode of payment:
The RTGS details of the institute are attached herewith. If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to the Client, you are requested to kindly indicate your acceptance to the undersigned within a period of one week from the date of this communication. Other formalities will be completed subsequently.” 1 “SCBAMSCGHS” 2 “STAOA” CPC 80/2022 3 3 There is some difference of opinion in regard to the number of site visits to be carried out by IIT Delhi. Before Justice Gita Mittal, it was suggested by the contractor that the number of site visits to be made by the experts of IIT Delhi may be capped in order to avoid an unnecessary financial burden. This was also supported by senior counsel appearing on behalf of STAOA. 4 We are of the view that since IIT Delhi has been appointed as an expert agency to supervise the work, the number of site visits should be entrusted to the discretion of IIT Delhi. It is not possible for this Court to put a cap on the number of visits since that would ultimately affect the nature of the supervision which IIT Delhi is to exercise. The schedule for site visits would be fixed in a responsible manner by a reputed expert agency, such as IIT Delhi. We accordingly leave it to the discretion of IIT Delhi to prescribe the number of site visits required to effectively carry out the supervision of the work.
5 During the course of the hearing, it is common ground that a dispute in regard to the elections of STAOA was carried to the Allahabad High Court and by an order dated 24 May 2022, the following directions have been issued by the Allahabad High Court:
“In view of the above, as an interim measure in the meanwhile, in the interest of residents of the apartment, it is provided that the management and maintenance of apartments shall continue to be done by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned as was authorised by the previous order dated 12.05.2022. He shall continue to only ensure the maintenance CPC 80/2022 4 of the basic amenities such as water, electricity, cleanliness and also lift maintenance is not adversely affected for the dispute between the parties claiming to have held valid elections.” 6 In view of the above directions, it is necessary for this Court to issue suitable directions so that the agreement can be entered into on behalf of STAOA. In the previous order dated 3 September 2021, it has already been directed that the agreement on behalf of the STAOA shall be signed by the Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
7 In the event that any further difficulty arises in implementing these directions, we permit the parties to approach Justice Gita Mittal for suitable directions. The fees and expenses payable to Justice Gita Mittal shall be borne by the contractor in terms of the order dated 21 March 2022.
8 Having regard to the dilapidated nature of the building, we direct the contractor, the WAPCOS Ltd and IIT Delhi to take up the work with utmost promptitude and to complete it preferably within a period of one year.
9 Justice Gita Mittal would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in regard to sharing the fees, if the need so arises, based on the conduct of the contesting parties.
10 The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.CPC 80/2022 5
11 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
12 In view of the disposal of the Contempt Petition, no orders are required to be passed on M.A. Nos 502 of 2022 and 459 of 2022 in MA No 672 of 2021 in CA No 2818 of 2020, which are accordingly disposed of.
….....…...….......…………………..CJI.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] ...…...….......………………....……..J. [J B Pardiwala] New Delhi;
January 31, 2023
CKB
CPC 80/2022
6
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No.80/2022 in C.A. No.2818/2020 SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION MULTI-STATE Petitioner(s) CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
VERSUS
AFTAB ALAM & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH M.A No.502/2022 in M.A. No.672/2021 in C.A. No.2818/2020 (With IA No.11610/2022-MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER and IA No.12027/2022-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) M.A. No.459/2022 in M.A. No.672/2021 in C.A. No.2818/2020 (With IA No.745/2022-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) Date : 31-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Umesh Babu Chgaurasia, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Ambika Atrey, Adv.
Mr. Shadman Ali, Adv.
Mr. S.M.A. Babu, Adv.CPC 80/2022 7
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Farrukh Khan, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Shanmukham Pujari, AOR Mr. Baasir Aziz, Adv.
M/s. Pratap & Co.
Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, AOR Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Batra, AOR Mr. Dhruv Sethi, Adv.
Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. C. Raghavendren, Adv.
Mr. V.N. Subramanian, Adv.
Mr. Bheem Singh Dabla, Adv.
Mr. V. Senthil Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ch Leela Sarveswar, Adv.
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Petitioner-in-person Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 The Contempt Petition and the Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of in terms of the signed order.CPC 80/2022 8
2 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file)