Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Writers And Publishers Pvt. Ltd. vs A. K. Mishri Official on 25 September, 2020
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, K.M. Joseph
MA 1328-1329/2020
1
ITEM NO.6+31 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application Nos.1328-1329/2020
In
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.1665-1666/2017
In
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.8398-8399/2005
M/S. WRITERS AND PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
A. K. MISHRI OFFICIAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for directions, intervention, permission to file
additional documents and exemption from filing affidavit)
WITH M.A. Nos.1739-1740/2020 in Contempt Petition(C) No.1665-
1666/2017 in S.L.P.(C) Nos.8398-8399/2005 (XIV)
(With appln.(s) for modification of Court order and permission to
file additional documents)
M.A. Nos.1741-1742/2020 in S.L.P.(C) Nos.8398-8399/2005 (XIV)
(With appln.(s) for orders/directions)
M.A. Nos.1778-1779/2020 in Contempt Petition(C) Nos.1665-1666/2017
in S.L.P.(C) Nos.8398-8399/2005 (XIV)
(With appln.(s) for appropriate orders/directions)
Date : 25-09-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s)
By Courts Motion
For Respondent(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG
Signature Not Verified Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Sr. Adv.
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.
Date: 2020.10.01
18:48:02 IST
Reason:
Ms. Aakansha Kaul, Adv.
MA 1328-1329/2020
2
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
Mr. Vikramjit Banarjee, LD ASG
Mr. R. Bala, Sr Adv.
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Gupta, Adv
Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Partha Sil, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Tiwary, Adv.
Mr. Ramneek Misra, Adv.
Mr. Tavish Bhushan Prasad, Adv.
Mr. H. P. Raval, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tamim Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Saeed Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Adv.
Ms. Puja Sharma, AOR
Mr. Kunal Sachdeva, Adv.
Mr. Shyam Singh Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.
Ms. Garima Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Parveen Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Balwinder Singh Suri, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Adv.
Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, AOR
Mr. Aniruddha Purushotham, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Bansal, Adv.
Mr. M. M. Kashyap, AOR
Mr. Siddharth, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. N.K. Modi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ankur Modi, Adv.
Ms. Fareha Ahmad Khan, Adv.
MA 1328-1329/2020
3
Mr. Kanishk Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Amit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Mr. Vijay K. Jain, AOR
Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR
Ms. Sunaina Phul, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
IA No 181072/2019 in MA Nos 677-678/2018 in SLP(C) Nos 8398-8399/2005 1 This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator of Super Bazar Co-
operative Store Limited, seeking the following relief:
“allow the present application by issuing appropriate directions for eviction of the shop No. 7 and 8, J Block, Saket, Malviya Nagar New Delhi in order to fulfill the obligations following from the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by this Hon'ble court in the above- mentioned special leave petition”
2 The respondent, Sudhir Bahl, was an employee of Super Bazar. Super Bazar, which was a multi-state cooperative society, went into liquidation on 5 July 2002. The order of liquidation was challenged by the Employees’ Unions before the Delhi High Court, which dismissed CWP Nos 85 and 1138 of 2003 on 19 December 2003. All the employees were retrenched with effect from 15 March 2003. The Official Liquidator has stated that out of 1943 employees, 913 had opted for voluntary retirement. The Assistant Manager (Personnel), Super Bazar, transferred the respondent on 19 July 2003 from the establishment of Super Bazar at Yashwant Place to shop Nos 7 and 8, J Block, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent has continued to remain in occupation of the shop since then.
3 On 13 October 2005, a notice was issued by the Official Liquidator to the respondent to hand over the keys and belongings of the shop to the department within three days of the receipt of the notice. On 17 October 2005, the respondent stated that he had been unable to attend the office for medical reasons. Another notice was issued on 7 April 2006. MA 1328-1329/2020 4 4 During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court arising out of the order for liquidation, an effort was made to revive Super Bazar resulting initially in an order dated 26 February 2009. M/s Writers and Publishers as the agency nominated for revival took charge of the management of Super Bazar on 14 July 2009. In the meantime, on 16 October 2010, the respondent stated again that due to his persistent health problems, he had been unable to attend the office. M/s Writers and Publishers did not complete the terms of their obligations under the rehabilitation scheme and were eventually relieved by an order dated 29 March 2016. On 10 May 2016 and 25 May 2016, the Official Liquidator called upon the respondent to hand over possession. Subsequently, IA Nos 98-99 of 2016 were moved before this Court seeking vacant possession of the premises from the respondent. By an order dated 21 November 2016, liberty was granted to the Official Liquidator to move the appropriate court.
5 The Official Liquidator published a sale notice on 4 January 2017 for conducting an e-auction of the shops in question, being shop Nos 7 and 8, on 28 January 2017. The respondent represented that he was interested in purchasing the shops and his spouse participated in the auction process. Two bids were received. The highest bid was of Shri Rajiv Kumar Gupta in the amount of Rs 2.55 crores. The second highest bid was submitted by the spouse of the respondent, Ms Cherry Bahl in the amount of Rs 2.51 crores. The highest bidder did not pursue the bidding process, as a result of which the Official Liquidator filed IA Nos 102 & 103 of 2017. The occasion for filing the interlocutory applications was that the respondent had made a representation that the highest bid of Rs 2.55 cores would be matched by the second highest bidder, who was his spouse. In the interlocutory applications by the Official Liquidator, the following averments were placed before this Court:
"One of the property namely shops No. 7 & 8 Saket, J Block, New Delhi is under the encroachment of one Mrs Cherry Bahl and Mr. Sudhir Bahl. The property was also placed for e-auction on 28.01.2017. One Shri Rajeev Gupta and Smt. Cherry Bahal participated in e-auction of the above shops. Shri Rajeev Gupta has quoted the highest price of Rs 2,55,00,000/- and Mrs MA 1328-1329/2020 5 Cherry Bahal quoted the price of Rs 2,51,00,000/- . Thereafter, Mrs Cherry Bahl has requested that she is ready to match the bid by offering Rs 2,56,00,000/- as she could not enhance the bid due to technical problem in their computer. As stated above this shop is encroached by Mrs. Cherry Bahl and M r Sudhir Bahal, ex-employee of Super bazar and in case a suit for possession or eviction is filed before the appropriate court, it will take considerable time for the finalization of the case. Thus in the interest of the society, the request of Mrs. Cherry Bahl is placed for consideration of this Hon'ble court.” 6 On 27 April 2017, an order was passed, allowing the interlocutory applications. Despite the opportunity that was granted, the highest bid was not matched. After the expiry of the term of the earlier Official Liquidator, the present Official Liquidator took charge on 18 June 2018. On 28 August 2018, a notice for handing over possession of the shops was issued to the respondent together with a demand of Rs 86,28,276, being the rent payable from 19 July 2003 until date. This was followed by reminders dated 27 September 2018 and 26 October 2018. Since the respondent has not vacated the premises of shop Nos 7 and 8, the present interlocutory application has been moved before this Court.
7 The respondent has entered appearance in pursuance of the notice issued by this Court and filed a response. Mr Bimal Roy Jad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied on the order dated 21 November 2016 passed by this Court, by which the earlier interlocutory applications were dismissed with liberty to the applicant to move the appropriate court for reliefs. That apart, it has been submitted that a petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi, being Writ Petition No 6990 of 2013, in which the Co- operative Store Limited, Super Bazar was the petitioner seeking possession of the two shops. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 13 November 2013. Moreover, it has been submitted that on 26 September 2017, the then Official Liquidator, A K Mishra, made a statement before the ACMM (South) before whom a criminal complaint (Case No 462988/2016) had been instituted, that the Official Liquidator did not wish to prosecute the case any further. Mr Jad has submitted that the respondent has an outstanding claim for his unpaid dues as an employee of Super MA 1328-1329/2020 6 Bazar. Moreover, he has submitted that if an opportunity is granted, the respondent and his spouse, who had submitted a bid in pursuance of the e- auction, would be ready and willing to pay the balance consideration of the bid which admittedly has not been paid.
8 Mr Harin P Raval, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator has submitted that the respondent has no right, title or interest to remain in possession. It has been urged that the order of this Court dated 21 November 2016, was passed at a stage when the respondent was continuing in occupation in his capacity as an employee of Super Bazar. Subsequently, it was at the behest of the respondent that his wife who had emerged as the second highest bidder in the e-auction, was allowed to match the highest bid of Rs 2.55 crores. Mr Raval submitted that ten per cent of the earnest money was required to be and was deposited. However, no payment has been made thereafter and despite the lapse of over three years, the bid amount has not been deposited. Hence, it has been urged that there has been a material change of circumstances after the earlier order dated 21 November 2016. Mr Raval has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-2 to the reply filed by the respondent, which is a letter written by the former Official Liquidator, A K Mishra, who, it is stated, is facing an enquiry by the CBI. The letter which is purportedly dated 15 May 2018 was stated to have been addressed by the Official Liquidator on the date of his demitting the office. The letter to the respondent is in response to a letter of the same date purportedly written by the respondent and states that any mediation/negotiation regarding the fair and reasonable price for the shops can be determined in the course of proceedings before this Court. Mr Raval has submitted that the letter indicates a clear complicity between the respondent and the earlier Official Liquidator which is also clear from the interpolation in hand in the date appearing at the top of the letter.
9 For the purposes of these proceedings, the simple issue which falls for consideration is whether the respondent has any right, title or interest to remain in occupation.
MA 1328-1329/2020 7 10 The respondent, admittedly, was an employee of a co-operative store, Super Bazar. Following the winding up of the cooperative store, the services of the employees were retrenched. The respondent was transferred from the Yashwant Place establishment to shops at Malviya Nagar, which admittedly were the properties of the Super Bazar. Neither in his capacity as an employee nor for that matter as the spouse of a prospective bidder, does the respondent have any right, title or interest to continue to remain in possession. The previous order of this court dated 21 November 2016 was before the auction took place. A bid was submitted at the auction by the spouse of the respondent. The spouse of the respondent offered to match the highest bid and at the behest of the respondent, the earlier OL agreed to grant her an opportunity to do so, which was allowed by the court. The respondent has not set up any claim of title or interest in the premises. He has not even a semblance of an interest. The OL can justifiably seek a direction from the court. The properties of the erstwhile cooperative society have to be realized to pay off the claims, including those of the workers, in accordance with the statutory order of priorities. The claim of the respondent in respect of his terminal dues has to be addressed to the Official Liquidator which would be dealt with in accordance with law. However, the respondent cannot claim to remain in occupation of the shops. He has absolutely no right, title and interest, nor does he even profess to do so. We are unimpressed by the submission of Mr Bimal Roy Jad, learned counsel for the respondent that the spouse of the respondent, who has submitted a bid in the course of the e-auction should be given a further opportunity to complete the bidding process. No such direction can be issued at a belated stage, after a lapse of three years for paying the balance of the bid price. No such relief can be granted in any event in the present interlocutory application in which possession has been sought by the Official Liquidator.
11 For the above reasons, we are of the view that the interlocutory application filed by the Official Liquidator would have to be allowed. The interlocutory application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) as extracted above, by directing the respondent to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the shop Nos 7 and 8, J Block, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, to the Official Liquidator MA 1328-1329/2020 8 forthwith. In the event that it becomes necessary for the Official Liquidator to do so, he shall take the assistance of the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area concerned. The DCP shall render all required assistance to facilitate the execution of the order of this Court.
12 The interlocutory application is accordingly allowed.
MA Nos 1741-1742/2020 in SLP(C) Nos 8398-8399/2005 1 Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
2 Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the Delhi Development Authority by email, in addition.
MA Nos 1739-1740/2020 in Contempt Petition (C) Nos 1665-1666/2017 in SLP(C) Nos 8398-8399/2005 1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants seeks the leave of this Court to withdraw the miscellaneous applications.
2 The miscellaneous applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
MA Nos 1778-1779/2020 in Contempt Petition (C) Nos 1665-1666/2017 in SLP(C) Nos 8398-8399/2005 1 We are not inclined to entertain the miscellaneous applications. The same are accordingly dismissed.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER