Important Points
1. In some cases existing laws may be inadequate to grant relief to persons whom, the Court feels genuinely to be entitled to relief but in such cases the Court should not allow itself to be deflected by red herrings drawn across the track and it has to pass such orders as the circumstances warrant to secure the interest of justice and to appease its judicial conscience.
2. In Skipper Construction case, the Supreme Court has accepted the Report submitted by Justice Bahari Commission.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Articles 129, 136 and 142—Matter relating to properties acquired by Tejwant Singh and his family members and with regard to Skipper Construction—Property situated at 22, Barakhamba Road and report of Justice Bahari Committee on diversion of funds—Property relating to Technology Parks Limited at Vaishali, Ghaziabad—Property relating to Technology Parks Limited at greater Noida—Project known as 22, Barakhamba Road was initially launched by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. under collaboration agreement with the owners of the property—Commission’s report stating that foundation of the project was laid in 1983 and super structure for three basements and the ground floor upto 10th floor were almost completed by 1987—11th and 12th floors have been constructed during the year 1990-1991—Objection to the report dated 29-10-2001 filed by Tejwant Singh—Commission noted that Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Tower Pvt. Ltd. were two companies which dealt with the building projects—Skipper Sales was giving loans to its sister concerns and companies—Commission reported that Rs. 12,85,06,335 had been collected from various persons for booking space while cost of construction was worked out as Rs. 5,97,02,963/—Balance of Rs. 6,37,28,621/- was utilised by sister concerns for their projects—Objections raised regarding cost are based on hypothetical figures—Report submitted by Justice Bahari Commission is accepted—Directions issued.
       Held : There is substance in the commissions’ findings that the accounts were cooked up. Copies of certain ledger accounts were produced before the Commission. It noticed that white fluid was used to obliterate the entries. A rather vague and fanciful explanation was given that since the amounts did not relate to the project in question the entries were obliterated. Interestingly, no explanation was offered as to which project the entries related and/or the nature of the entries. We are of the considered view that the more detailed working out, as done by the Commission, has to be preferred over hypothetical figures given in the objection on the basis of incomplete and/or manipulated data. Therefore, the Report submitted by Justice Bahri Commission is accepted. (Paras 13 and 14)
       The Commission in its reports dated 5.9.2001 and 3.12.2001 has submitted its report in respect of two projects and transactions of TPL. As noted above, at present, consideration is to the report so far as it relates to plot nos. 23 and 26 Vaishali Parks Apartment-Vaishali Ghaziabad. Referring to the communication from Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short ‘GDA’) it has noted that plot nos. 23 and 26 Vaishali Parks Apartment - Vaishali Ghaziabad were allotted to M/s. Kanchan Properties, Kanpur for a sum of Rs. 1.20 crores; 50 of the price had been deposited by the allottee and the possession was handed over to the allottee and the plan for constructing a multi storeyed building was also sanctioned. Balance 50 of the price was yet to be paid and the same had not been paid upto 31st December, 1995. The amount payable inclusive of interest etc. is Rs.1,04,74,452/-. Though time was extended, the deposit had not been made and the allotment was cancelled and the order of cancellation was communicated to the allottee on 4.4.1996. (Para 15)
       The rights of the said plot were transferred to TPL for a consideration of Rs. 87.75 lakhs. In the agreement it was noted that the original allottee had paid Rs. 70 lakhs towards principal amount and Rs. 2.25 lakhs towards interest to GDA and balance amount with other demands of the authority were to be paid by TPL. The Commission noted that 15 floors + basement and ground floor were sanctioned for this plot. On verification it was found that bare structure upto 9 floors including basement were constructed. Upto signing of MOU, no booking had been done for sale of flats in the project. The MOU was executed between TPL, Aman Associates, Madhu Kamboj on one side and M/s Shikha Developers Ltd. (in short ‘Shikha’) on the other side on 18th January, 1999. In terms of this MOU plot Nos. 23 and 26 Vaishali Parks Apartment - Vaishali Ghaziabad had been transferred to Shikha for a consideration of Rs. 50 lacs. In lieu of consideration, TPL had purchased a flat measuring 2500 sq. ft. at 1E/2 Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi in the name of Miss Madhu Kamboj. The said Jhandewalan flat belongs to M/s Aman Associates and that is why a tripartite agreement had been entered into. (Para 15)
       619 claimants claimed to have made bookings. The amount of total claims which has been accepted comes to Rs. 5,62,76,875/- while the amount of rejected claims comes to Rs. 18,58,473/-. The total area booked by the claimants whose claims have been accepted comes to 353615 sq. ft. Out of the total claims 360 claimants sought for refund of their deposited amounts while 230 claimants continued to stake their claim for allotment of plots booked. 11 claims were rejected. It was noted that 18 claims were registered twice. The claimants who claimed allotment have booked total area of 118947 sq. ft. (Para 17)
       Learned counsel appearing for Shikha submitted that if three months’ time is granted, it shall be able to pay all the 590 claimants (360 depositors who have claimed refund and 230 who were interested in getting plots but have alternatively prayed for refund). It is submitted that if construction is permitted, Shikha will refund the amount with interest. We accept the prayer subject to following conditions:
       (1) An undertaking shall be filed before this Court within two weeks from today clearly stating the undertaking of Shikha to pay back all the 590 allottees the amount they had deposited and accepted by the Commission along with 8 interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
       (2) Construction on the area in question shall be permitted on the basis of sanctioned plan. But no sale of the properties is permitted until payment is fully made by the Shikha.
       (3) A bank guarantee covering the entire amount payable alongwith interest shall be furnished and filed with the Registrar General of this Court. After all the claims are settled, the Registrar General on verification of the documents to be filed regarding full payment of all the claimants shall discharge the Bank guarantee with due intimation to the bank(s) giving the guarantee.
       We feel it would be appropriate to appoint a senior judicial officer to scrutinize the claims of all the claimants other than those who are to be paid by Shikha and to direct disbursement of the amounts out of the surplus available from the sale of 3 Aurangzeb Road property. We are informed that several legally enforceable judgments/decrees/orders have been passed to which effect has to be given. The officer to be appointed shall also examine the enforceability of the judgments/decrees/orders in question, and pass appropriate orders regarding payment, if any, to be made. (Paras 21 and 22)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—There are some cases which at times strengthen the idea that existing laws may be inadequate to grant relief to persons whom, the court feels genuinely to be entitled to relief. Courts, more particularly, this Court will not adjure its duty to prevent violent miscarriage of justice by passing such orders as are necessary to uphold the rule of law and lift the veil of purported legality over such perfidious acts. In such cases the Court should not allow itself to be deflected by red herrings drawn across the track. It has to pass such orders as the circumstances warrant, of course within the four corners of law to secure the interest of justice and to appease its judicial conscience. The facts of the present case have some such unique features. In Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947(2) All E.R. 373), it was observed that the law would fail to protect community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. Technicalities should not stand in the way of Courts doing substantive justice. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that justice has no favourite other than truth. Fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law, however, high degree of solemnity may be attached to the transactions. In the present case, this Court took note of the massive fraud perpetuated by several persons including corporate bodies. The kingpin in the whole episode is Tejwant Singh purportedly with the aid and assistance of his wife Surinder Kaur and sons Prabhjot Singh Sabharwal and Prabhjit Singh. This Court by exercise of the jurisdiction available under Articles 129, 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) passed various orders relating to the properties acquired by Tejwant Singh and his family members and with regard to Skipper Construction Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘Skipper Construction’).

2. By order dated 22.11.2004 following issues were demarcated for consideration :

1. Property situated at 22, Barakhamba Road and the Report of the Justice Bahari Committee on diversion of funds.

2. Property relating to Technology Parks Limited at Vaishali, Ghaziabad.

3. Property relating to Technology Parks Limited at Greater Noida.

4. Report of the Central Vigilance Committee pursuant to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 13.11.2002.

3. We are presently concerned with the report of Justice Bahri Committee. The first one is relating to property situated at 22, Barakhamba Road and the alleged diversion of funds, and the other relating to the report relating to Technology Parks Limited. (in short ‘TPL’) at Vaishali, Ghaziabad and Greater Noida. Justice Bahri Commission was appointed pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 4th May, 2000. The Commission was directed to look into diversion of funds of Skipper Tower Pvt. Limited (in short the ‘Skipper Tower’). The project known as 22, Barakhamba Road was initially launched by Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘Skipper Sale’) under collaboration agreement with the owners of the property. The Commission has come to hold that foundation of the project was laid some time in 1983 and the super structure for three basements and the ground floor upto 10th floor were almost completed by 1987 and the 11th and 12th floors have been constructed during the year 1990-1991. Objection to the report dated 29.10.2001 of Justice Bahri has been filed by Tejwant Singh.

4. We shall deal in detail with the findings of the Commission and the objections filed. Pursuant to the directions given by the Commission, informations were submitted by Tejwant Singh and others which the Commission felt to be distorted. They were in the shape of copies of the ledgers and a report of the Chartered Accountant. Commission, however, obtained copies of the Balance Sheets and Director’s reports of various companies of the Skipper Group from the Registrar of Companies. During hearing, Tejwant Singh, Prabhjeet Singh and their employees were heard by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 587

Cases Referred (1)