BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS

BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. No.192235/2022, I.A. No.192248/2022, I.A.
No.192436/2022, I.A. No.12917/2023 and I.A.
No.26340/2023
IN
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 940 OF 2017
BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. ….PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The present batch of IAs has been filed by various promoters/
developers/builders working in Noida/Greater Noida for recalling of
the order dated 07th  November, 2022.   Pursuant thereto, orders
dated 10th  June, 2020, 19th  August, 2020 and 25th  August, 2020
passed in the pending proceedings were recalled. 
1
2. At a given point of time, lease deeds were executed between
such project builders/developers/promoters with the Noida/Greater
Noida authorities, keeping in view the commercial considerations on
agreed   terms   and   conditions,   later   sought   to   invalidate   and
intended to amend their contractual terms so far as the payment of
interest is concerned, through the intervention of this Court and all
of them have accordingly filed their respective IAs for recalling of
the order dated 7th November, 2022 passed by this Court.  
3. To look into the complaint of the present applicants, it will be
apposite   to   take   note   of   the   background   facts,   which   may   be
relevant for proper appreciation of the grievance which each of the
applicants has pointed out in raising their joint voice for recall of
the order dated 7th November, 2022, pursuant to which the interim
orders passed by this Court dated 10th  June, 2020, 19th  August,
2020, and 25th August, 2020, stood recalled by this Court. 
4. It clearly manifests from the record that various writ petitions
were filed by the homebuyers, some may be in public interest, but
the   substratum   of   the   writ   petitions   was   pertaining   to   various
projects of the companies of Amrapali Group, working as developers
2
in Noida/Greater Noida.  It was pointed out that in the year 2011,
in Noida and Greater Noida, Amrapali Group of Companies entered
into   various   real   estate   projects   for   housing   and   proposed   to
construct   approximately   42,000   flats   and   to   fulfil   their
commitments,   various   attractive   projects   through   the   form   of
brochures   was   widely   published   and   it   was   assured   that   the
delivery of possession shall be made within the time­schedule as
indicated in the brochure and it was promised that they will provide
world class amenities to the homebuyers. On this public assurance
extended by the Amrapali Group of Companies, it came on record
that   various   homebuyers   booked   their   apartments   during   the
period   2010­2014   and   after   entering   into   Allotment­cum­Flat
Buyers Agreements, payments were made by the homebuyers from
40% to 100% of the total sale consideration and later the Amrapali
Group of Companies failed to fulfill their commitments and were
unable to make available the “dream flats” to their customers and
their   lifetime’s   savings   and   hard­earned   money   was   allegedly
siphoned by Amrapali Group of Companies.  
3
5. At this stage, this Court in the interest of justice, stepped in
and   took   cognizance   to   secure   the   interests   of   homebuyers,
obviously within the four corners of law and  proceeded to consider
as to what relief could be extended to the homebuyers, who booked
their flats in various projects of Amrapali Group of Companies. After
a detailed discussion, this Court decided those writ petitions by a
judgment dated 23rd July, 2019 in  Bikram Chatterji & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.1 and passed certain restraints while holding
a vigil over the functioning of Amrapali Group of Companies and
directed to take all other steps which may secure the interests of
homebuyers.     Para   no.156   is   relevant   for   the   purpose   and   is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“156. Resultantly, we order as follows:
156.1. The registration of Amrapali Group of Companies under
RERA shall stand cancelled.
156.2. The   various   lease   deeds   granted   in   favour   of   Amrapali
Group of Companies by Noida and Greater Noida Authorities for
projects in question stand cancelled and rights henceforth, to vest
in Court Receiver.
156.3. We hold that Noida and Greater Noida Authorities shall
have no right to sell the flats of the homebuyers or the land leased
out for the realisation of their dues. Their dues shall have to be
recovered   from   the   sale   of   other   properties   which   have   been
attached. The direction holds good for the recovery of the dues of
the various banks also.
1 2019 (19) SCC 161
4
156.4. We have appointed NBCC to complete the various projects
and hand over the possession to the buyers. The percentage of
commission of NBCC is fixed at 8%.
156.5. The homebuyers are directed to deposit the outstanding
amount   under   the   agreement   entered   into   with   the   promoters
within 3 months from today in the bank account opened in UCO
Bank in the branch of this Court. The amount deposited by them
shall be invested in the fixed deposit to be disbursed under the
order of this Court on phase­wise completion of the projects/work
by NBCC.
156.6. In view of the finding recorded by the forensic auditors and
fraud  unearthed,   indicating  prima   facie  violation  of  FEMA   and
other   fraudulent   activities,   money   laundering,   we   direct   the
Enforcement Directorate and authorities concerned to investigate
and   fix   liability   on   persons   responsible   for   such   violation   and
submit the progress report in the Court and let the police also
submit the report of the investigation made by them so far.
156.7. We direct the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to
initiate the appropriate disciplinary action against Mr Anil Mittal,
CA for his conduct as reflected in various transactions and the
findings recorded in the order and his overall conduct as found on
forensic   audit.   Let   appropriate   proceedings   be   initiated   and
concluded as early as possible within 6 months and a report of
action taken to be submitted to this Court.
156.8. We   direct   various   companies/Directors   and   other
incumbents in whose hands money of the homebuyers is available
as per the report of forensic auditors, to deposit the same in the
Court within one month from today and to do the needful in the
manner as observed. The last opportunity of one month is granted
to   deposit   the   amount   and   to   do   the   needful   failing   which
appropriate action shall be taken against them.
156.9. The Ministry concerned of the Central Government, as well
as the State Government and the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development,  are  directed  to ensure  that   appropriate  action  is
taken as against leaseholders concerning such similar projects at
Noida and Greater Noida and other places in various States, where
projects have not been completed. They are further directed to
ensure that projects are completed in a time­bound manner as
contemplated in RERA and homebuyers are not defrauded.
156.10. We   appoint   Shri   R.   Venkataramani,   learned   Senior
Advocate, as the Court Receiver. The right of the lessee shall vest
in the Court Receiver and he shall execute through authorised
5
person on his behalf, the tripartite agreement and do all other acts
as may be necessary and also to ensure that title is passed on to
homebuyers and possession is handed over to them.
156.11. We also direct  Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to
execute the tripartite agreement within one month concerning the
projects   where   homebuyers   are   residing   and   issue   completion
certificate notwithstanding that the dues are to be recovered under
this order by the sale of the other attached properties. Registered
conveyance deed shall also be executed in favour of homebuyers,
they are to be placed in the possession and they shall continue to
do so in future on completion of projects or in part, as the case
may be. We direct the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to take
appropriate action to do the needful in the matter. The Water
Works   Department   of   the   area   concerned   and   the   Electricity
Supplier are directed to provide the connections for water and
electricity to homebuyers forthwith.”
6. After   passing   of   the   detailed   judgment   by   this   Court,   the
matter was listed for further hearing only with an object to comply
its   directions   and   to   make   an   endeavour   that   each   of   the
homebuyers’ interests be secured, as possible.   
7. When the matter was taken up for further hearing, apart from
the defaults committed by Amrapali Group of Companies ­ of which
cognizance was taken by this Court ­ the Court Receiver submitted
his note exploring the possibilities and avenues for securing and
augmenting the funds for execution of stalled projects of Amrapali
Group of Companies.  Indisputably, upto this stage, the grievance
was confined only to examine the stalled projects of Amrapali Group
6
of Companies and this Court ventured to find out as to how the
interests   of   homebuyers   could   be   secured,   particularly,   in   the
projects of Amrapali Group of Companies.
8. Around this time, when this Court was taking a call based on
the Court Receiver’s Report, to take a further course of action in
making compliance of the directions referred to in para 156 of the
judgment passed by this Court, of which reference has been made
hereinabove, I.A. No.4139 of 2020 was filed by a builder, named,
Ace Group of Companies, seeking certain reliefs on the same lines,
as   prayed   for   on   behalf   of   flat   buyers   of   Amrapali   Group   of
Companies and it was claimed by Ace Group of Companies in their
application that they may also get the benefit of reduction in the
rate of interest which is to be charged by the authority.  It may be
appropriate to notice that Ace Group of Companies approached this
Court by filing IA No.4139 of 2020 on its own behalf and not being
authorized by the builders who have entered into their respective
lease deeds with the Noida/Greater Noida authorities, neither the
applicant (Ace Group of Companies) was holding power of attorney
on   behalf   of   others   nor   authorized   by   other   developers/project
7
proponents working with Noida/Greater Noida authorities, or that it
was in a representative capacity.  
9. At the same time, there was no material available on record,
even placed by Ace Group of Companies, and no builder, including
Ace Group of Companies, could claim parity with the Amrapali
Group of Companies for the reason that this Court by its judgment
dated 23rd  July, 2019, not only cancelled the lease deed executed
between   the   Amrapali   Group   of   Companies   and   Noida/Greater
Noida authorities, but also appointed a Court Receiver and issued
certain detailed directions ­ of which reference has been made in
para   156   of   the   judgment   of   this   Court   ­   in   reference   to   the
Amrapali Group of Companies.  
10. We are not going at this stage on the background facts as to
what transpired to this Court, but from the material it reveals that
on a complaint made by Ace Group of Companies for reduction of
rate   of   interest   to   be   charged   by   the   Noida/Greater   Noida
authorities as alike extended to Amrapali Group of Companies, the
matter was heard on 27th May, 2020 and order was reserved and
was pronounced on 10th June, 2020.  It may be noticed that looking
8
to the problems in cash flow because of unprecedented Covid­19
pandemic   situation   and   its   aftermaths,   general   directions   were
issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 9th June, 2020 reducing the
rate of interest to be charged by the authorities ­ which was in rem
applicable to all the builders/project proponents who are working
and covered under the general directions issued by the Government
of Uttar Pradesh ­ and obviously this notification could not have
been available before the Court when the order was reserved on 27th
May, 2020 and   pronounced on 10th  June, 2020, in reference to
which the Court reduced the rate of interest on the outstanding
premium and other dues to be realized in all such cases at the rate
of 8% per annum and made it applicable to all 114 plots which were
allotted   from   the   year   2005   onwards   by   Noida/Greater   Noida
authorities.  The extract of para 42 of the order, which is relevant
for the purpose is reproduced hereunder:    
“42. Considering the current state of real estate, the projects are
standstill, and in order to give impetus to such housing projects
and mainly considering plight of home buyers and as pointed out
by   Noida   and   Greater   Noida   Authorities   that   114   plots   were
allotted from 2005 onwards, most of projects are incomplete; we
direct that rate of interest on the outstanding premium and other
dues to be realized in all such cases at the rate of 8% per annum
and let the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities do a restructuring
of the repayment schedule so that amount is paid and Noida and
9
Greater Noida Authorities are able to realize the same.   As to
reasonable time frame, we would kike to hear the parties.  In case
of failure to pay, the concession granted shall stand withdrawn.
However,   at   the   same   time,   the   Noida   and   Greater   Noida
Authorities shall also ensure that not only instalments/money are
deposited,   but   also  all  such  projects   are  completed  within  the
stipulated time.”     
11. The said order came to be clarified by an order dated 10th July,
2020 and later further orders came to be passed on various IAs filed
by M/s Prateek Group of Companies and other groups, who are
admittedly nowhere on screen from 22nd May, 2020 to 25th August,
2020.  It may be relevant to note that regarding the projects of M/s
Prateek Group of Companies, the date of allotment of lease deed
was between years 2008 and 2012 and all projects were completed
much before the cognizance was taken by this Court in the year
2019.  As noticed by us in our order dated 7th November, 2022, it
will be apposite to reproduce the same : 
“That the Applicant Company, through its group companies
has been allotted the following plots for the development of
group   housing   projects   as   well   as   the   progress   of   the
Applicant on the said projects:
Sl.
No
.
Plot No. &
Location
Allottee
Company
Project
Name   &
Number   of
Flats
constructed
Date of Allotment
& Lease Deed
10
1. E­11, 
Sector   61,
Noida
Prateek
Buildtech
(India) Pvt. Ltd.
Prateek
Fedora 251
26.12.2008
/
31.12.2008
2. GH­04/B
Sector 45
Noida
Prateek
Buildtech
(India) Pvt. Ltd.
Prateek
Stylome
545
08.03.2010
/
31.03.2010
3. GH­01,
Sector
120,
Noida.
Prateek
Realtors   India
Pvt. Ltd.
Prateek
Laurel 1530
10.12.2009
/
07.01.2010
4. GH­01,
Sector 77,
Noida
Prateek
Realtors   India
Pvt. Ltd.
Prateek
Wisteria
1800
31.03.2010
/
26.05.2010
5. GH­01/A
(Beta­II)
Sector
107, Noida
Prateek
Infraprojects
India Pvt. Ltd.
Prateek
Edifice 423
02.02.2012
/
15.02.2012
12. However, an outstanding of Rs.23.78 crores was not paid to
the Noida/Greater Noida authorities ­ which was due and payable
on behalf of M/s Prateek Group of Companies and the demand was
outstanding for a sufficiently long time.  But after the orders came
to be passed by this Court, later on dtd. 19th August, 2020 and 25th
August, 2020, an application was filed on behalf of Noida/Greater
Noida authorities for recalling of all the three orders referred to
hereinabove.  
13. At  this stage, there was strong objection made by various
group of companies, including Ace Group of Companies, Prateek
11
Group of Companies, Paramount Group of Companies and Ajnara
Group of Companies and also by other individual builders/project
proponents and after the matter was heard at length and taking
note   of   the   objections   made,   this   Court   finally   arrived   at   the
conclusion   that   miscellaneous   orders   passed   by   this   Court,   in
extending   the   relief   to   other   promoters/developers   other   than
Amrapali Group of Companies under its order dated 10th  June,
2020 followed with orders dated 19th August, 2020 and 25th August,
2020 deserve to be recalled and accordingly under order dated 7th
November, 2022, such interim orders passed by this Court were
recalled with a further direction that the rate of interest should be
calculated   in  respect   of  builders   other  than   Amrapali   Group   of
Companies, after taking into consideration the effect of the order
dated 9th June, 2020 passed by the State of U.P.   
14. After   passing   of   the   order   dated   7th  November,   2022,   the
present IAs being I.A. No.192235/22 by M/s Prateek Infraprojects
India Pvt. Ltd.; I.A. No.192248/22 by CREDAI & NAREDCO; I.A. No.
192436/22   by   M/s.   Paramount   Propbuild   Pvt.   Ltd.;   I.A.   No.
12917/23 by ET Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. and I.A. No.26340/23 by
12
M/s. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. have been filed and each of
them has come with a common voice that once the orders were
passed   by   this   Court   after   hearing   the   parties   and   taking   into
consideration   the   objections   raised   by   Noida/Greater   Noida
authorities, there was no reason or justification for recalling of such
orders under the order impugned dated 7th November, 2022 and a
joint request is made that the order dated   7th  November, 2022
passed by this Court recalling the orders dated 10th  June, 2020,
19th August, 2020 and 25th August, 2020, may be recalled.  
15. In support thereof, a further submission is made that one of
the orders passed on 10th July, 2020 has not been recalled and if
that   remain   on   record,   the   authorities   are   under   obligation   to
charge interest in terms of the orders dated 10th  July, 2020, of
which   reference   has   not   been   made   in   the   order   dated   7th
November, 2022.   
16. Learned counsel further submits that by notification dated 9th
June,   2020,  the   State  of   U.P.   has   made  applicable  the   rate  of
interest to be charged from various builders/project proponents
and that was brought to the notice of the Court after the first order
13
came   to   be   passed   dated   10th  June,   2020   and   the   Court   took
cognizance   of   the   notification   dated   9th  June,   2020   in   its
subsequent orders dated     10th July, 2020 and thereafter.  It is
also their objection that if the projects run by the Amrapali Group
of   Companies   are   entitled   for   certain   financial   benefits,   why   it
should not be extended to other group of companies ­ who also face
the   same   financial   crunch   during   the   unprecedented   Covid­19
pandemic ­ and justification has been tendered to this Court for
recalling its order dated 7th November, 2022.   
17. Further   submission   made   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
applicants is that once the orders have been passed after hearing
the parties on perusal of available records, at least, miscellaneous
application  filed  for  recalling  of  such  orders  was  not  valid  and
justified under the guise of miscellaneous application filed at the
instance   of   Noida/Greater   Noida   authorities   unless   there   is   a
manifest apparent error or mistake being traced out in the orders of
which reference has been made in the order dated 7th  November,
2022, recalling of such orders was ordinarily not permissible under
14
the law and in support thereof reliance has been placed on various
judgments of this Court.
18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents appearing for
the Noida/Greater Noida authorities submits that the order dated
10th June, 2020, was the foundational order.  At that stage the only
application filed, of which this Court took cognizance, was of the
Ace Group of Companies and to be more specific I.A. No.4139 of
2020 (Ace Group of Companies) and no such application has been
filed by Ace Group of Companies for recall of the order dated 7th
November, 2022. 
19. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the Prateek
Group of Companies is concerned, the statement which has come
on record and noticed by this Court in its order dated 7th November,
2022 is indeed alarming that all its projects were completed much
before the cognizance was taken by this Court and it was unable to
pay the demand as raised by the Noida/Greater Noida authorities in
terms of the conditions of the lease deed executed with open eyes
between the parties.  It also moved an IA before this Court which
was not even remotely concerned with the cause of which judicial
15
notice was taken by this Court with an object to secure interests of
the homebuyers of Amrapali Group of Companies. 
20. Learned counsel further submits that so far as IAs filed by
CREDAI and NAREDCO and other developers are concerned, they
have   not   filed   any   IA   upto   the   passing   of   the   order   dated   7th
November, 2022 and so far as the other IAs are concerned, all came
into the pool after order of 25th August, 2020 came to be passed by
this   Court   ­   at   a   later   stage   ­   and   admittedly   either   of   the
promoters/builders was not even remotely concerned, directly or
indirectly,   in   reference   to   the   projects   of   Amrapali   Group   of
Companies of which judicial cognizance was taken by this Court. 
21. Learned counsel further submits that once this Court ­ after
hearing the parties ­ arrived at the conclusion that the three orders
i.e. 10th June, 2020, 19th August, 2020, and 25th August, 2020 of
which a detailed reference has been made under order dated 7th
November, 2022 deserve to be recalled, the present group of I.As are
not maintainable and deserves to be rejected.  
16
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
with their assistance perused the material available on record.
23. The undisputed facts which have come on record are that the
initiation of proceedings in the first instance in Bikram Chatterji
(supra) was only confined to consider how to secure the interests of
homebuyers of Amrapali Group of Companies and at a later stage,
interim application was filed by the Ace Group of Companies and
later   few   other   group   of   companies   also   intervened   in   the
proceedings, but admittedly either of the group of companies in no
manner was   related to the functioning of the Amrapali Group of
Companies ­ of which reference has been made in para 156 of the
judgment.  
24. It is, however, true that at one stage this Court stepped into
the interim application filed by Ace Group of Companies and by the
other group of companies as well and passed certain interim orders
protecting them in reference to revised rate of interest chargeable
from   the   builders/developers   with   a   further   direction   of
restructuring of the payment schedule payable to Noida/Greater
Noida authorities.  
17
25. On an application being filed at the instance of Noida/Greater
Noida   authorities,   this   Court   has   looked   into   and   revisited   the
material available on record at length and arrived at a conclusion
that order passed on 10th  June, 2020 followed with orders dated
19th August, 2020 and 25th August, 2020 deserve to be recalled, of
which express reference has been made in detail while passing the
order dated 7th November, 2022.
26. We have examined the interim applications which have now
been filed by various group of companies for recalling of the order
dated   7th  November,   2022,   pursuant   to   which   we   consciously
recalled our orders dated 10th June, 2020, 19th August, 2020 and
25th August, 2020 and in the present facts and circumstances, we
find no reason/justification to recall our order dated 7th November,
2022.     Consequently,   the   interim   applications   are   without
substance and deserve to be dismissed.
27. So far as the submission made that the order dated 10th July,
2020 has not been recalled is concerned, it is without substance for
the   reason   that   the   order   dated   10th  July,   2020   is   only   a
clarification/modification of the first foundational order passed by
18
this Court on 10th June, 2020 ­ which was independently passed on
the later facts/developments placed on record.  That apart, it is a
mere technical objection which needs no credence.  
28. The further submission made is that if this Court arrives at
the conclusion that the orders passed by this Court on respective
IAs filed at the instance of the builders/developers deserve to be
recalled, at least their IAs may be restored and heard on merits.
The submission on the face of it appears to be attractive, but holds
no foundation for the reason that the IAs were filed by various
group of companies, including Ace Group of Companies, but they
are not in any manner concerned with the plight of homebuyers of
Amrapali Group of Companies, of which judicial cognizance was
taken by this Court and merely filing of IAs by other group of
companies who are stranger to the cognizance taken by this Court
in reference to Amrapali Group of Companies, do not deserve any
indulgence at least in the instant proceedings.  
29. Consequently, the IAs are dismissed.   
19
……………………………..J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………………..J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 28, 2023.
20

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India