Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Griha Pravesh Build Teck Pvt Ltd vs Suresh Chander Sharma on 3 December, 2024
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 33 OF 2024
GRIHA PRAVESH BUILD TECK PVT LTD ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
SURESH CHANDER SHARMA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No. 929 OF 2024
CIVIL APPEAL No. 34 OF 2024
O R D E R
1. These appeals are against the common order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) in Consumer Case No. 3617 of 2017 and connected matters dated 06.09.2023. The common grievance of the appellant a real estate developer is confined to the direction to pay interest for the period between 14.08.2013 to 19.08.2015 despite recognition of the said period as Zero period due to court orders suspending projects within a 10 km radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary.
2. Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the Signature Not Verified appellant(s) has submitted that for three specific reasons, the Digitally signed by KAPIL TANDON Date: 2024.12.09 18:02:38 IST Reason: Commission should not have granted interest for the said period. 1
3. At the first place, he would rely on the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal in Application No. 158/2013 titled as Amit Kumar vs. U.O.I. & Ors. because of which the appellant was disabled from proceeding with the development of the project. The relevant portion of the order is as under;
“5. We make it clear that all the building constructions made within 10 km radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary or within distance of eco-sensitive zone as may be prescribed by the Notification issued by the MoEF shall be subject to the decision of the NBWL and till the time the clearance of NBWL is obtained, the authority concerned shall not issue completion certificates to the projects.”
4. He would also rely on the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the National Green Tribunal in Application No. 158/2013 titled as Amit Kumar vs. U.O.I. & Ors. which is as under:
“13. (i). In the first instance, we have passed an order not permitting any construction activity within 10 Km radius from the protected area of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. Thereafter, the said order came to be modified to the effect, that in so far as it relates to the projects of construction which are already completed, the construction shall be subject to the final order passed by the Tribunal and the authority shall not give any completion certificate to such constructed buildings.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
20) Be that as it may, it is seen that all the State Governments were requested to send to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, their proposals and it is brought to the notice of this Tribunal, that the Ministry of Environment and Forest, in fact by its letter dated 18.03.2014 has sent its queries to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for certain comments in respect of the proposal.
The comments which are sought for by the MoEF from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh as seen in the paper produced by learned Counsel for MoEF, are 2 relating to various issues like site etc.
21) To the above said queries made by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, admittedly the Uttar Pradesh Government has not given its reply. It is also seen from the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that not only the Government of Uttar Pradesh but also Government of Delhi and Haryana are likely to be affected if the distance is within 10 Km radius of Okhla Bird Sanctuary. As stated above, it is not for this Tribunal to put any embargo on the powers of the State Government if it decides to fix the limit of eco sensitive zone. However, as stated above, such decisions of the Government are subject to the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such view of the matter, we dispose of the application with the following directions:
(i) The State of Uttar Pradesh shall send its response to the queries raised by MoEF within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, to the MoEF.
(ii) The state of Delhi as well as Haryana who are likely to be affected by fixation of eco sensitive zone shall also send their proposals to the MoEF within four (4) weeks from today.
(iii) After receipt of the said proposal as well as comments by the respective governments within the time stipulated above, we direct the Secretary, MoEF Government of India to call for the concerned officers of all the State Governments concerned and have interaction and decide finally about the fixation of the eco sensitive zone in respect of Okhla Bird Sanctuary.
(iv) While such decision is taken, the Secretary, MoEF in the said meeting shall take into consideration about the demarcation of boundaries in fixing the eco sensitive zone apart from the issues as to whether it is site specific etc. While making such decision the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest shall also make necessary consultations with the National Board for Wildlife.
(v) After such decision is taken in the meeting convened.
(vi) by the MoEF, the concerned State Governments shall grant their consent within two (2) weeks after the meeting. After such consent obtained, the Ministry of Environment and Forest shall issue 3 necessary notification as per the powers conferred under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, expeditiously.
(vii) Till such notification is issued, the interim order passed by this Tribunal as modified subsequently shall continue to be in operation.
(viii) It is needless to state that any decision taken by the Government in notifying the Eco Sensitive Zone shall be subject to the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter pending before it.” (emphasis supplied)
5. Secondly, he would also rely on the Minutes of the 35 th Meeting of the Standing Committee of Naitonal Board for Wildlife held on 18.08.2015. The relevant portion of which is as under:
“Agenda Item no.3 35.2.1 Agenda Items on Policy Matters for Discussion.
35.2.1.1 Declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone around Okhla Bird Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh The member secretary briefed the committee on the necessity of placing the matter before the Standing Committee. He mentioned that in its order dated 3rd April 2014, the National Green Tribunal had stipulated that the Secretary, MoEFCC shall make necessary consultation with National Board for Wildlife while notifying the ESZ around Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The proposal was formulated as per the provisions of Environment Protection Rules, by publication of draft notification, providing 60 days of public comments and has been finalized after consideration of the comments received. After discussions, the Committee decided to recommend the ESZ proposal for final notification.”
6. Thirdly, he would further rely on the Report of the Committee constituted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affair (MoHUA) to examine the issue related to Legacy Stalled Real Estate Projects.
IV (a) (i). Introduction of a “Zero Period”: To alleviate financial stress caused by extraordinary circumstances, the Committee suggest suspending interest and penalties due to events like the covid-19 pandemic (01.04.2020 to 31.03.2022), and court orders suspending projects within a 10 km 4 radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary (14.08.2013 to 19.08.2015). The State Governments could examine and provide further zero periods based on the local conditions/circumstances.
7. On the basis of above extracted portions, he would submit that the period commencing from 14.08.2013 to 19.08.2015 has specifically been excluded and treated as a ‘zero period’. He would also submit that this position was recognized by the Commission in its order dated 19.10.2023 as an event of force majeure and the relevant portion of the said order in Adarsh Bhushan Dial vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. is as under:
“9. Force Majeure has been statutorily recognised under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872. Supreme Court in Dhanrajmal Govindram Vs. Shyamji Kalidas, AIR 1961 SC 1285, held that an analysis of the rulings on the subject shows that where reference is made to "force majeure" the intension is to save the performing party from the consequences of anything over which he had no control. On account of scarcity of the water, six months delay may be accepted. National Green Tribunal stopped construction from 14.08.2013 till 19.08.2015. Demonetization of currency notes of rupees 500 and 1000 affected the construction work for a period of about six months. Covid-19 and consequent lockdown in country affected construction work for about one year. As such, the opposite party is entitled for extension of four year period on amount of force majeure. The case laws relied upon by the complainant is not applicable in present case as in those cases, payment plan was 'construction link payment plan' and during the period of force majeure as pleaded instalments were realized.
ORDER In view of aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to handover possession of the flat allotted to the complainant, complete in all respect as per specification with all promised amenities and facilities forthwith and execute sub lease deed as soon as possible in the favour of the complainant. 5 The opposite party shall give delay compensation in the form of interest @6% per annum on the deposit of complainant from 15.09.2013 till the date handing over possession, deducting four years period for force majeure, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment.”
8. Mr. M.C. Dhingra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) has initially submitted that there was in fact no interim order during the period 14.08.2013 to 19.08.2015 as contended by Mr. Anupam Lal Das. He would further submit that even during this period, the builder was proceeding with construction and therefore, non-grant of interest during this period is not justified. His further submission is that a Special Leave Petition has been filed by one of the consumers against the further order passed in the Review Petition by the Commission in its review jurisdiction which is pending consideration.
9. Having considered the matter in detail, we will restrict the consideration in the present appeal to grant of interest for the period between 14.08.2023 to 19.08.2015. In view of the orders passed by the (i) National Green Tribunal, (ii) Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, (iii) Report of the Committee constituted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affair (MoHUA) and (iv) certain orders passed by the National Commission, we direct that the respondents will not be entitled to claim interest on compensation for the period commencing from 14.08.2013 to 19.08.2015.
10. As we have confined our order to the extent as indicated above, this order shall not have any bearing on the pending Special Leave Petition(s).
6
11. With these observations, Civil Appeals are disposed of.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………………………………………………J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA] …………………………………………………………………………J. [MANOJ MISRA] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 03, 2024 7 ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.13 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 Civil Appeal No(s). 33/2024 GRIHA PRAVESH BUILD TECK PVT LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS SURESH CHANDER SHARMA Respondent(s)
(IA No.259318/2023-STAY APPLICATION) WITH C.A. No. 929/2024 (XVII-A) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 13115/2024) C.A. No. 34/2024 (XVII-A) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 260696/2023) Date : 03-12-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sinha Shrey Nikhilesh, Adv.
Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Mr. Swastik Verma, Adv.
Mr. Mohd Faraz, Adv.
Mr. Awnish Maithani, Adv.
Mr. Parth Davar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR Mr. Siddarth Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Kappor, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. The Civil Appeals are disposed of in terms of the Signed Order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
8