Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Starligh Systems (I) Ltd Liability ... vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Krishna Murari, Sanjay Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2023
@ Diary No(s). 15384/2023
Starlight Systems (I) Ltd Liability Partnership ... Petitioner(s)
Vs
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
ORDER
Delay Condoned.
1. This Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 20.10.2022, merely adjourning the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein before the High Court of Bombay to 21.12.2022.
2. Petitioner approached the High Court impugning notice dated 09.09.2014 issued by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as, “MMRDA”) charging penal additional premium amounting to Rs. 52,80,98,641/- for extension of time for completing the construction in Bandra Kurla Signature Not Verified Complex (BKC) area beyond four years. The claim of the petitioner before the High Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2023.05.08 13:48:42 IST Court was that despite the fact that additional built up area was also allotted, in the Reason:
1
meantime by MMRDA for raising additional floors on the same building. The petitioner has also sought a prayer in this Special Leave Petition to refund with interest the aforesaid amount recovered from him towards penal additional premium.
3. Making reference to a judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay dated 20.11.2019 in Writ Petition No. 586 of 2018 (Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) & Ors.), which is filed as Annexure P-10 to I.A. No. 81429 of 2023 for placing the additional documents on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts of the case of the petitioner is similar to the facts of the case of Raghuleela (Supra). As such, there appears to be no justification in adjourning the petition and to keep the Writ Petition pending when the same could have been disposed of in terms of the Judgment rendered in the case of Raghuleela (Supra) to pass similar order. He has made reference to paragraph 38 and 40 to impress upon this Court that the facts of the two cases are identical. For the sake of brevity, paragraph 38 and 40 of the judgment in the case of Raghuleela (Supra) are being produced hereunder:-
“38. The MMRDS constituted a single member committee of retired Judge of the Supreme Court to decide whether the MMRDA should give concession in recovery of premium considering the time required for plot owner to obtain permissions from various authorities for construction of building thereon. It is contended that one member committee has concluded that the charging of premium for extension of time for completing construction in Bandra-Kurla Comples area, specifically in case where additional built up area has been allotted by the MMRDA, was illegal. In its 138th meeting held on 26th August 2015, the MMRDS had acknowledged the difficulties faced by the lessees and that the condition of completion of construction within 4 years of the 2 execution of the lease was adversely affecting the tendering process.
The MMRDA had appointed an expert one man committee of retired Supreme Court Judge in that regard. The single member committee has advised that the period of 6 to 7 years be granted for completion of construction.
40. The MMRDA had issued a letter of allotment dated 20 th March 2012 allotting additional 67,000 sq. meters at consideration of 984 crore. Part payment of Rs. 196 crore was received on 20th March 2012.
The supplementary lease deed was executed for additional built up area of 67,000 sq. meters. The letter of allotment dated 20 th March 2012, the acceptance of part payment of consideration for additional built up area allotted, diluted the time period of four years and there was no question of application of condition of occupation certificate for built up area within 4 years when additional built up area was allotted for raising additional 11 floors on the same building.”
4. It is also submitted that the judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay in the case Raghuleela (Supra) has attained finality inasmuch as the Special Leave Petition filed by MMRDA being SLP (C) No. 6411 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court specifically referring to the observations made in paragraph 38 and 40 (referred hereinabove).
5. Be that as it may, since no final order has been passed in the case of the petitioner and the impugned order being only of adjourning the proceedings to a future date, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.
6. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the High Court to finally decide the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner pending before it on its own merit expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. 3
7. It is left open to the petitioner to demonstrate whether their case is also covered by the observations contained in the order dated 20.11.2019 of the High Court passed in the case of Raghuleela (Supra) for entitlement of a similar order.
8. With the aforesaid observations and request to the High Court to decide the pending petition, this Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
…………………………………,J.
(KRISHNA MURARI) …………………………………,J.
(SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;
APRIL 28, 2023
4
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.13 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 15384/2023 (Arising out of impugned Interim order dated 20-10-2022 in WP No. 2377/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) STARLIGH SYSTEMS (I) LTD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Petitioner(s) VERSUS MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.79075/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.79074/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 28-04-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Karan Bharihoke, Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
The special leave petition stands disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Geeta Ahuja) (Beena Jolly)
Assistant Registrar-cum-PS Court Master
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
5