Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 2190
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHAN, S.B. SINHA, A.K. MATHUR, JJ.
Buffalo Traders Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
I.A. Nos. 22, 40 in C.A. No. 3769 of 1996
Decided On : 24-07-2008
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Mr. Puneet Jain.
For the Respondents: Ms. Rekha Pandey, Mrs. Anil Katiyar.
For the MCD : Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, M/s Saharya.
For the CPCB : Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Mr. Ajay Kr. Jha, M/s. Parekh.
For the Contractor : Mr. Prashant Kumar.
For the State of Uttar Pradesh : Mr. Shail Kr. Dwivedi, Ms. Savitri Pandey, Mr. Anuvrat Sharma.
The court has the authority to appoint individuals to determine the total cost of a project and issue specific directives regarding construction, handover, and tax refund.
Headnote:
Dispute - Total Cost of Project - The court appoints an advocate and a retired Engineer-in-Chief to determine the total cost of the project, with both parties' consent. The court also sets a lump sum fee for the appointed individuals and directs cooperation from both the MCD and the contractor in arriving at the total cost of the project.
Fact of the Case:
There is a dispute regarding the total cost of the project. The court appoints Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate, along with a retired Engineer-in-Chief to determine the total cost of the project, with both parties' consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court directs the contractor to construct staff quarters and hand over the project to MCD by a specified date. It also directs MCD to take over the project and start operation by a specified date. Additionally, the court directs the contractor to hand over the receipts of taxes paid to MCD for refund within a week.
Issues: Dispute over total project cost, construction and handover of the project, and refund of taxes other than income tax.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the appointment of an advocate and a retired Engineer-in-Chief to determine the total cost of the project, the cooperation of both parties in the determination process, and the specific directives regarding the construction, handover, and tax refund.
Final Decision: The court orders the appointment of individuals to determine the total cost of the project, sets deadlines for construction and handover of the project, and specifies the process for refunding taxes other than income tax.
ORDER :
1. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following:
There is a dispute regarding the total cost of the project. After taking consent from both the parties, we appoint Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate to assist us in determining the cost of the project. In all fairness, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate stated that he may have appeared in this case for Union of India on one or two occasions. In reply to this, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG appearing for MCD and Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate appearing for the contractor state that they have full faith in Mr. Raju Ramachandran and they have no objection for his appointment to assist the court in determining the total cost of the project. Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate, who happens to be a Chartered Accountant also, is appointed to assist Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate. We also appoint one retired Engineer-in-Chief of CPWD ( in case of non-availability of Engineer-in-Chief of CPWD then any other Engineer-in-Chief) to be contacted and appointed by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate to arrive at a total cost of the project incurred by the contractor.
2. We fix a lump sum fee of Rupees two lakhs for Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate and Rupees one lakh each for Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate and retired Engineer-in-Chief to be shared by both the parties equally. This fee shall be apart from the administrative expenses which shall also be shared equally by both the parties.
3. MCD as well as contractor are directed to co-operate with Mr. Raju Ramachandran and his associates in arriving at the total cost of the project. Report be submitted within four weeks from today. It is made clear to both the parties that no objection shall be entertained on the report to be submitted by Mr. Raju Ramachandran and his associates. Mr. Raju Ramachandran is requested to submit three copies of the report with an advance copy to both the parties.
4. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate appearing for the contractor states that the contractor shall construct the staff quarters within four weeks from today. He also states that as the project is complete, the contractor wants to handover the project to the MCD at the earliest. Contractor is directed to handover the project to MCD on or before 10th August, 2008.
5. MCD is directed to take over the project and start operation w.e.f. 1st September, 2008.
6. Insofar as taxes other than income tax are concerned, we direct the contractor to handover the copy of the receipts of the taxes paid by the contractor to various authorities to MCD within a week with an advance copy to Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG and MCD shall refund the taxes other than income tax within two weeks from today.
7. List on 27th August, 2008 at 10.30 a.m.
