Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In order to understand how these issues arise, it is necessary to go back (A) to the long history of events set out in the above said judgment and (B) to the subsequent events. In Part (C) we shall deal with four issues which have crystallised. In the rest of this judgment Delhi Development Authority is described as DDA and Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd is described as Skipper, for convenience.

PART A In October, 1980, Skipper became the highest bidder for purchase of a plot of land at Jhandevalan in Delhi which was advertised for sale for Rs. 9.82 crores and deposited 25% of the price. The balance was to be deposited as per the tender schedule. Skipper defaulted in spite of seven extensions during January 1981 to April 1982. When proceedings for cancellation of the bid were in the offing, Skipper moved the Court and obtained a stay order on 29.5.82 and started making representations. DDA appointed a Committee to work out a formula and pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee, Skipper was asked to enter into a revised agreement incorporating fresh terms. Skipper raised objections to these proposals from 1984 till 1987 but finally the agreement was entered into on 11.8.87. Even before permission to enter was however granted under the revised agreement, Skipper started selling the space to be built in the proposed structure and started receiving monies. Though Skipper paid the 1st instalment much beyond the time, it did not pay the second instalment but furnished Bank guarantees which were found to be defective. It however made some token payments to DDA. Subsequently, CWP.2371/1989 was filed for a direction to DDA to sanction plans/permit construction at its risk. On 19.3.90, High Court of Delhi permitted construction in accordance with sanctioned plan subject to deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs in two instalments and 1.94 crores in one month. DDA filed SLP(C) 6338/90 and 6339/90. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court passed an order in the WP.2371/89 on 21.12.90 directing payment of Rs.8.12 crores approx. in 30 days and stopped further construction w.e.f. 9.1.91 till payment and stated that in default, the revised agreement dated 11.8.87 would stand cancelled and DDA would be entitled to re-enter the plot. Reasons for the order were given on 14.1.91, Skipper defaulted but approached this Court on 29.1.91 in SLP(C) 186/91 when this Court passed an interim order for deposit of Rs.2.5 crores in one month and Rs.2.5 crores before 8.4.91 and Skipper was expressly prohibited from inducting any person in the building and from creating any rights in favour of third parties. In spite of it, Skipper issued advertisement on 4.2.91 and on latter dates in newspapers in Delhi and invited further purchasers to purchase the space in the proposed building. Sales agreements were entered into by certain purchasers inspite of DDA's warning dated 13.2.91 published in newspapers. SLP(C) 186/91 was dismissed on 25.1.93.

DDA re-entered the plot and took physical possession on 10.2.93 along with the building thereon "free from all encumbrances" in terms of the revised agreement/licence and as provided in the orders of the Delhi High Court dated 21.12.90 and 14.1.91. It also "forfeited" the amounts paid till then by Skipper in terms of the revised agreement dated 11.8.87 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

It is stated in DDA Vs. Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd. ( 1996(4) SCC 622) that before 29.1.91 Skipper collected about Rs.14 crores from various parties to sell space in the proposed building. Even after 29.1.91, Skipper collected various amounts, about Rs.11 crores. It appears that the same space was sold to more than one person and monies were collected.

On 4.11.99, this Court heard counsel on various issues (to which reference will be made in Part C) and reserved judgment. This Court also issued notice to the Banganga Company ( Videocon) which purchased Jhandevalan land and structure from DDA. This Court proposed transfer of appeals pending in Delhi High Court to this Court in relation to Barakhamba property.
PART C Having narrated the events which took place as above, we shall now refer to some of the issues which have crystallised. We have heard the submissions of the learned Amicus Curaie Sri Joseph Vellapally and Sri Dayan Krishnan, assisting the Amicus Curaie. We have heard Sri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor General and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for DDA, Sri M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate for Skipper, Sri R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate for Mr. Prabjot Singh, Lt. Col. Jaswant Singh (in person) and various others. A question has arisen whether in respect of the structure at Jhandevalan which vested in DDA and which DDA sold to Banganga ( Videocon), DDA should be directed to deposit something more in addition to Rs.16.75 crores deposited by it. DDA says that that issue has become final by judgment dated 6.5.96 and cannot be reopened. On the other hand, it has come to light that the purchasers were not eo-nominee parties to the suit by Skipper against DDA which was transferred to this Court and was registered as SLP(C) No.21000/93. For the present, we do not propose to go into this question as to whether the judgment of this Court dated 6.5.96 has become final or is not binding on those who purchased from Skipper Construction Co. on the ground of their not being parties to the above suit and Special Leave petition. However, we shall take up this question at a later point of time. Learned counsel made submissions on the following issues:
POINT 4 and 5: Learned senior counsel for Skipper, Sri M.L. Verma contended that there is a stipulation in the agreement of sale that interest will not be payable to the buyer in case the transaction fails for any reason. On the other hand, Sri Dayan Krishan for the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that in view of the earlier finding of this Court relating to 'fraud' on the part of Skipper, it is not permissible for Skipper to rely on the above clause in the agreement. In our view, learned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that in the order of this Court dated 15.1.1995, there is a clear finding of 'fraud' against Skipper. This is because, when the available units of accommodation are said to be 870 or less, Skipper had given bookings in favour of 2700 buyers and collected huge sums.