K. Ramamoorthy, J.

( 1 ) THE builders Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had not acted in accordance with the business ethics and that had resulted in number of persons instituting suits in this Court. The fact that the premises bearing Door No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi was owned by the following persons as co-owners is not disputed. The share of each of the persons is also given below:

( 2 ) IN the first instance Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with the owners on 24. 6. 1977 for the purchase of the property. That did not materialise. Thereupon in 1981 collaboration agreement was executed between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vijender Singh, one of the co-owners modifying the agreement. There were agreements on 22. 4. 1985 between Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vijender Singh and the members of his family and there was an agreement on 3. 11. 1986 between Mr. Vijender Singh and his family members in and by which Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. agreed to allot space to Mr. Vijender Singh and his family. 0n3. II. 1986skippersales Pvt. Ltd. assigned its rights which derived from the coowners to Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. and on and from 3. 11. 1986 it was the responsibility of Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. to complete the Complex and allot the flats to various agreement holders. It appears that right from 1977 onwards agreements had been entered into between Skippers Sales Pvt. Ltd. and intending flat buyers and Skippers Towers Pvt. Ltd. and intending buyers. A perusal of the records would show that there were more number of buyers than the flats available in the Complex that is the genesis of the present dispute.

( 3 ) THIS Court with a view to quickening the process of construction and allotment appointed a Committee consisting of two retired learned Judges of this Court for this purpose and they submitted two Reports, one interim and the other final. The final report was submitted on 18. 1. 1994. The Committee had proposed allotments. The Committee had given its report with following Annexures A to V, the details are as follows :

( 4 ) A number of suits had later on been filed. Some of the parties have challenged the method adopted by the Committee and some had accepted the Report of the Committee.

( 5 ) I recorded evidence in all the suits and I had also perused the documents in all cases.

( 6 ) AREADING of the Final Report of the Committee gives me the impression that the Committee felt that it had been given only the responsibility and the necessary power to evidently implementit had not been given to it. But I must placeon record, with great respect my sincere appreciation of the work done by the Committee in trying to come to some conclusion in the matter which has enabled me to proceed further in the matter to give a finishing touch, as it were, so that as early as possible the Complex could be completed in all its shape and could be made functional for the benefit of the allottees and in the interests of the public.

( 7 ) THE Chief Architect of the N. D. M. C. Mr. V. P. Gupta had stated before the Committee the details of the space available in the Complex, which are as follows:therefore, allotment has to be made in accordance with law and I have to take into account the space available as per the details given by Mr. V. P. Gupta, the Chief Architect, N. D. M. C.

( 8 ) AT the outset, it has to be noticed no all tment could be made with reference to the Upper Basement, Middle Basement and Lower Basement. As per the sanctioned plan Upper Basement is to be used for storage. The Middle Basement and the Lower Basement could be used only for car parking. I shall deal with at the appropriate stage about the allotment made by the Committee in respect of the allottees for space in the Basements.

( 9 ) IT is to be noted that Col. Jaswant Singh representing the Flat Buyers Association contended that Mr. Vijender Singh and the members of his family would not be entitled to any allotment because in 1977 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document