Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Parsvnath Buildwell Private Limited vs Parsvnath Exotica Residents ... on 29 November, 2019
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No 5335 of 2016
Parsvnath Buildwell Private Limited .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Parsvnath Exotica Resident's Association and Anr ....Respondent(s)
WITH
Civil Appeal No 5336 of 2016
ORDER
These appeals arise from a judgment and order dated 6 May 2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1 in Consumer Complaint Nos 45 and 46 of 2015. The NCDRC disposed of the proceedings by directing the appellants to refund the entire amount paid by the allottees of premises, together with simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum, in addition to which, an amount of Rupees Three Lakhs was directed to be paid by way of compensation. The order passed by the NCDRC reads as follows:
“(i) The opposite party No.1 in Consumer Complaint No.45 of Signature Not Verified 2015 namely Parsvnath Developers Ltd. is directed to refund, Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR within four weeks, the entire amount paid by the 39 allottees in Towers B-D who are the members of the complainant Date: 2019.12.05 17:10:20 IST Reason:
Association, along with compensation in the form of simple interest calculated @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of each payment till the date the said refund is paid, along with 1 “NCDRC” 2 entire compensation in terms of this order;
(ii) The opposite party No.2 in Consumer Complaint No.46 of 2015 namely Parsvnath Buildwell Ltd. is directed to refund, within four weeks, the entire amount paid by the 31 allottees in Towers E & F who are the members of the complainant Association, along with compensation in the form of simple interest calculated @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of each payment till the date the said refund is paid, along with entire compensation in terms of this order;
(iii) The opposite party No.1 in Consumer Complaint No.45 of 2015 namely Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and opposite party No.2 in Consumer Complaint No.46 of 2015 namely Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. are also directed to pay within four weeks, Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation to each of their respective allottees, who are members of the complainant Association, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of this order till the date of payment / recovery;
(iv) The opposite party No.1 namely Parsvnath Developers Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2015, shall pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant;
(v) The opposite party No.2 in Consumer Complaint No. 46 of 2015 namely Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. shall pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.” Consequently, these two appeals have been filed emanating from the order of the NCDRC in two consumer complaints.
Initially, by an order dated 15 September 2016, the developer was directed to deposit a sum of Rupees Twelve Crores before the Registry of this Court which was directed to be kept in an interest bearing short term deposit in the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi.
Thereafter, on 18 October 2016, this Court directed the developer to deposit a further sum of Rupees Ten Crores. On 18 November 2016, this Court recorded that the amount that was already deposited shall be maintained in a short term fixed deposit so as to accrue interest.
On 6 February 2017, this Court directed that the balance of Rupees Thirty Lakhs should be deposited before the Registry of this Court since the principal amount was stated to be Rs 22.30 crores. 3
As regards, disbursal to the flat buyers, in the order dated 18 October 2016, directions were issued to the effect that 70 purchasers who were respondents would be entitled to withdraw the amount which had been deposited with the Registry on a pro rata basis on proper identification. Subsequently, the Court was informed that the total number of flat buyers was 69 and not 70.
The process of disbursement has been facilitated by Mr Pawanshree Agrawal, learned amicus curiae. By the order of this Court dated 20 September 2017, the amicus curiae was directed to prepare a list of the home buyers who were represented through counsel and to furnish it to Mr Sachin Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the developer and to also file a tabulated chart with regard to the payment of the principal and interest computed at the rate of ten per cent.
On 1 December 2017, this Court was informed that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the developer had obtained a draft of Rs 5,19,14,472. This was directed to be distributed on a pro rata basis among the respondents. There was a balance of Rs 6.24 crores due which was to be adverted to on the next date of hearing.
On 2 February 2018, this Court directed the deposit of the balance Rs 6.24 crores within a period of six weeks. Time was again granted by this Court on 23 March 2018 and 9 April 2018.
On 9 April 2018, this Court noted that the appellant had deposited an amount of Rupees Two Crores which was directed to be distributed on a pro rata basis. Out of the balance, an amount of Rupees Two Crores was directed to be deposited by 27 April 2018.
4
Thereafter, on 7 May 2018, a further amount of Rupees Two Crores was deposited while the balance of Rs 2.24 crores was directed to be deposited by 15 July 2018. It is not in dispute that a further sum of Rupees One Crore was deposited on 24 July 2018 while the remaining balance of Rs 1.24 crores was deposited on 20 August 2018.
Mr Pawanshree Agrawal, learned amicus curiae, states that the entire principal amount, together with interest at the rate of ten per cent, has now been disbursed to all the home buyers. All the 69 home buyers are represented by Mr M L Lahoty, learned senior counsel, who states that there is no dispute about the factual position that the principal amount has been disbursed, together with interest at the rate of ten per cent.
That leaves with the Court with adjudicating on the direction of the NCDRC for the payment of compensation of Rupees Three Lakhs to each of the home buyers.
We are of the view that the aforesaid amount must be deposited and paid. We accordingly direct the appellant to deposit an amount sufficient to cover the payment of Rupees Three Lakhs each to the respondents within four weeks. However, if a surplus is lying with the Registry, the balance to make up the total amount payable at the rate of Rupees Three Lakhs each shall be deposited within a period of four weeks after taking due credit of the amount which is lying in the Registry of this Court. An amount of Rupees Three Lakhs shall be disbursed to each of the home buyers against proper identification and following the same pattern as was indicated in the earlier orders of this Court.
5
We are of the view that the appeals should now be closed in terms of the above directions. The award of interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum instead and in place of twelve per cent per annum to each of the buyers would provide a reasonable compensation to the buyers for the delay which was caused in handing over of the possession and in lieu whereof the refunds have been made. We accordingly modify the order passed by the NCDRC in the above terms.
Since the grievance of the flat buyers has finally been disposed of in terms of the above directions, we direct that each of the flat buyers to whom a refund has been made of the principal amount, together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, in terms of the directions already noted above, shall deposit the original agreements and requisite documentation with the developer within a period of four weeks from today.
The following interim applications have been filed by the persons who have moved impleadment applications before this Court:
S No Name of applicant IA No
1 Manmohan Singh Perhar 52031 of 2017
2 Ramnik Kaur Parhar 52027 of 2017
3 Kumar Dep Ranjan Singh and Urmila 83867 of 2017
Thakur
4 Rakesh Singhal 121635 of 2017
5 Anudeep Singh and Garvita Singh 93115 of 2017
6 Hardevi Batra 42425 of 2018
7 Birpal Singh and Manju Devi 42425 of 2018
8 Madhoolika Verma & Prakash Chandra 115302 of 2019
Verma
6
We grant liberty to the above individuals who are not parties to the proceedings before the NCDRC to get themselves impleaded in the class action which is pending before the NCDRC, being CC 889 of 2016. These applications are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
The only remaining issue pertains to the dispute between the developer and the land owner. In the order of this Court dated 9 April 2018, the dispute was adverted to and the Court had made the following observations:
“Another aspect needs to be addressed. The controversy that has arisen is between the appellant-developer and the land owner, who is represented by Mr. J.M. Bari, learned counsel. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the dispute between the appellant-developer and the land owner is basically a financial dispute. The land owner may remain assured that his grievances shall be looked into at the appropriate time. For the present, he shall fully cooperate with the appellant- developer, so that the construction is not stalled and further the revised building plans are sanctioned by the competent authority i.e. the Ghaziabad Development Authority. After the revised plans are sanctioned, the appellant-developer shall give this Court a schedule of time for completion of the said towers, so that the consumers do not remain in lurch.” It appears that the dispute between the developer and the land owner has still not been resolved. During the course of the hearing, the proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, that were instituted by the developer before the Allahabad High Court, being Arbitration Application No 52 of 2017, were stayed on 9 April 2018.
Mr Sachin Dutta, learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the developer and Mr J M Bari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the land owner, have agreed that the dispute between the developer and the land owner may be referred to the arbitration. The parties have agreed to the appointment of Hon'ble Mr Justice A P Shah, former Chief Justice of 7 the Delhi High Court as a sole arbitrator. We accordingly, by consent, refer the dispute between the developer and the land owner to the arbitration of Hon'ble Mr Justice A P Shah, who shall act as a sole arbitrator. The parties would be at liberty to move all claims before the arbitrator, including for interim relief.
In view of the above directions, Arbitration Application No 52 of 2017 before the Allahabad High Court will not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
No other point has been pressed on either side.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
IA No 70375 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No 5335 of 2016 and IA No 72392 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No 5336 of 2016 By the order of this Court dated 20 September 2017, the builder was directed to disburse the principal amount, together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum as and by way of an interim direction. This direction was issued in order to compensate the flat buyers for the delay which has been caused by the developer in the completion of the flats which have been agreed to be sold to the flat buyers.
We, therefore, clarify that the direction which was contained in the order dated 20 September 2017 for the payment of interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum was compensatory in nature.
The applications are accordingly disposed of.8
All other pending applications in the appeals are also disposed of.
…………...…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] …..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Hrishikesh Roy] New Delhi;
November 29, 2019
9
ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.8 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).5335/2016
PARSVNATH BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PARSVNATH EXOTICA RESIDENT’S ASSOCIATION & ANR. Respondent(s)
(WITH IA No. 92121/2019 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 129169/2017 – CLARIFICATION/ DIRECTION, IA No. 70375/2019 – CLARIFICATION/ DIRECTION, IA No. 88946/2017 – CLARIFICATION/ DIRECTION, IA No. 115303/2019 – CLARIFICATION/ DIRECTION, IA No 70375/2019 – CLARIFICATION/ DIRECTION, IA No. 3/2016 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 95007/2018 - EXTENSION OF TIME, IA No. 38648/2018 - EXTENSION OF TIME, IA No. 64928/2018 - I/A FOR C/D OF FOUR DAYS IN DEPOSITING THE DEMAND DRAFT OF RS. 2 CRORES IN TERMS OF ORDER DTD 9.4.18, IA No. 129177/2017 - I/A FOR PERMISSION THE APPELLANT TO DEPOSIT THE INTEREST AMOUNT, IA No. 52031/2017 – IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 52027/2017 – IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 121635/2017 – IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 93115/2017 – IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 42429/2018 – IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 83867/2017 – IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 42425/2018 – IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 70082/2017 – IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 115302/2019 – IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 92974/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, IA No. 1/2016 - STAY APPLICATION) WITH C.A. No. 5336/2016 (XVII-A) (IA No. 72392/2019 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 1/2016 - EX- PARTE STAY, IA No. 3/2016 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 29-11-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv. (A.C.) Ms. Abhipsa Anamika, Adv.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sachin Dutta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Deepanshu Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anchit Sripat, Adv.
Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR 10 Mr. J.M. Bari, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Bari, Adv.
Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv.
Mr. Ankush Bari, Adv.
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv.
Mr. Pramit Chhetri, Adv.
Mr. Abid Jeelani, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. K.P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. K.P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev P. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, AOR Mr. Manan Popli, Adv.
For M/S. Udit Kishan And Associates Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR Mr. Kirit S. Javali, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv.
Ms. Anusha Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Kaveri Kirshna Jha, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. IA No 70375 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No 5335 of 2016 and IA No 72392 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No 5336 of 2016 By the order of this Court dated 20 September 2017, the builder was directed to disburse the principal amount, together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum as and by way of an interim direction. This direction was issued in order to compensate the flat buyers for the delay which has been caused by the developer in the 11 completion of the flats which have been agreed to be sold to the flat buyers.
We, therefore, clarify that the direction which was contained in the order dated 20 September 2017 for the payment of interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum was compensatory in nature.
The applications are accordingly disposed of. All other pending applications in the appeals are also disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)