Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd. Now Known As Castles Vista Pvt. Ltd vs. R. V. Prasannakumaar

ITEM NO.6 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Miscellaneous Application No.567/2021 in C.A. No.3623/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-11-2020 in C.A. No.3623/2020 passed by the Supreme Court of India)

MANTRI CASTLES PVT. LTD. NOW KNOWN AS Petitioner(s) CASTLES VISTA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

VERSUS

R.V. PRASANNAKUMAAR & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln.(s) for IA No.25883/2021-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)

WITH M.A. No.566/2021 in C.A. No.3623/2020 (XVII-A) (With appln.(s) for IA No.29934/2021-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)

Date : 16-04-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. M/s. Devasa & Co.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1 Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has adverted to the averments contained in paragraphs 26 and 31 of the Digitally signed by Miscellaneous Application which are extracted below for convenience of

reference:

"26. The responses to the written note dated 12.1.2021 filed on behalf of the flat purchasers, which the Learned Commissioner records that he has taken note of categorically states, inter-alia, as:-

" ....Buyers Response to para III:- It is vehemently denied that the buyers made delay in making payments of the instalments already paid to the builder as on date of offer of possession ... ... ".

" ... Buyers Response to para IV: It is again vehemently denied that buyers failed in making payment in terms of the agreement …....".

" ..... It is again vehemently denied that there was any delay in the payments already made .......".

• 31. As a matter of fact, more than 50% of the 34 buyers had already deposited 100% of the Agreement sale consideration well before 31.7.2016, and all of them had deposited more than 95% of the Agreement sale consideration well before 31. 7.2016, except 1 buyer Nitin Mahendru who had deposited around 90 % because construction was not progressing as per schedule and another buyer Sunil Thakur who had deposited slightly less than 95% because of revised Agreement with the builder."
• 2 Mr Bhushan submits that as a matter of fact, the applicants had produced a chart before the learned Commissioner, Shri R V Easwer, for the purpose of demonstrating that all buyers - except for one - had made the payments of their installments due to the developer (save and except for the last installment which was to be paid at the time of possession) in terms of the demands made by the developer.
• 3 As a matter of fact, it has also been submitted that a clear indicator of the flat buyers not being in default of the obligation to pay the installments is that the developer would have otherwise charged interest at the rate of 18% as prescribed by the agreement. Hence, it has been submitted that the

3

observation by the Commissioner that the counsel did not dispute the statement of the counsel for the developer that except for five purchasers, all other thirty-four persons did not strictly adhere to the payment schedule to the agreements, is factually incorrect. Though in the order of this Court dated 3 November 2020, it was recorded that the findings of the Commissioner would be final and binding, it has been urged that the Commissioner, as a matter of fact, did not make a factual determination and hence, the aforesaid provision which has been made in paragraph 9 of the order would not preclude the buyers from making the submission which they have made in the miscellaneous applications.

• 4 Issue notice, returnable in three weeks. Dasti permitted.
• 5 Liberty to serve the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the developer who has appeared in the previous proceedings, in addition. Service be also effected in the electronic mode.
• 6 Counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of service.
• 7 Mr Sahil Tagotra, the Advocate-on-Record assisting Mr Prashant Bhushan shall file a compilation comprising of the material which was actually produced on behalf of the applicant-flat buyers before the Commissioner during the course of the proceedings, within a period of two weeks from today.
• 8 List the Miscellaneous Applications on 13 May 2021.

(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master