Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: skipper in Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 8 February, 1995Matching Fragments
ORDER
1. The facts leading to contempt proceedings are as under:
On 8.10.1980, an auction was held by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA ) of the Commercial Tower Plot, Jhandewalan, Block E, New Delhi ad measuring about 2540 sq. mtrs. The first respondent. Ws. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Skipper)was the highest bidder, its bid being Rs. 9.82 crores. As per the conditions of the auction, Skipper deposited 25% of the bid amount. The said bid was confirm the DDA on 14.10.1980. Skipper was called upon to make the balance of payment of 75% of the bid amount within 90 days as per the conditions of the auction.
2. The Government of India issued directions to the DDA to accept the request of Skipper and to grant an indulgence to it and directed the DDA to reschedule the recovery of 75% of the bid amount with interest from the Skipper. Consequent to this, DDA called upon the Skipper to enter into fresh agreement, license agreement and furnish bank guaranties in compliance with the directions of the Central Government.
3. On 11.8.1987, Skipper entered in a license agreement, paid 50% of the original bid and secured payment of the balance 50 % of the bid and interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon by submitting bank guarantees for Rs.9.82 crores, in terms 'of which a sum of approximately 1.944 crores was required to be paid as each instalment. A total of 5 instalments was payable every six months., the first being due on 15.9.1987 and the last on or about 15.9.1989.
4. Against the first instalment of Rs.1.944 crores falling due on 15.9.1987, DDA recovered about Rs. 88.76 lacs by encashment of the bank guarantee on 7.12.1987. Thereafter the first respondent did not pay in terms of the agreement.
5. On 4.10.1988, the Lt Governor issued a direction at the request of Skipper, deferring recovery from Skipper of the 2nd instalment as per the agreement dated 11.8.1987 till one month after the sanctioning of the building plans.
6. In August, 1987, the first respondent filed writ petition in the High Court of Delhi, being CWP No. 2371 of '1989. The principal relief sought in the writ petition related to sanctioning of building plans and permission for construction. An interim order was passed directing the Skipper to furnish fresh bank guarantee since the bank guarantee furnished earlier had lapsed. The DDA did not encash the fresh bank granite which was detective. Time and again the DDA represented to the Court that the monies were outstanding from the Skipper and no indulgence ought to be shown to them till the payments were made. The question of payment of the outstanding amount of over Rs. 8 crores under the principal sum itself was deferred from time to time.
10. Suit No. 1 1875 of 1990 was filed by the Skipper for a direction that the DDA ought not to insist upon payment by cash or draft and ought to be directed to encash bank guarantee. The learned Vacation Judge issued orders directing the DDA to invoke the bank guarantee. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed.
11. On 21.12.1990, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed C.W.P. No.2371 of 1989 directing Skipper to pay to the DDA by cash or demand draft a sum of Rs.8,12,68,789/- within 30 days; to stop construction till payment is made; and in the event of non-payment by the skipper, DDA would be entitled to enter upon the property and forfeit the monies received by the DDA.