9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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'). By order dated 22.11.2004 following issues were demarcated for consideration: 1. Property situated at 22, Barakhamba Road and the Report of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other. With reference to the Director's report for the period from 23rd June, 1977 to 30th July, 1978, the Commission found that ₹ 27,57,000/- were paid to the real owners of 22, Barakhamba Road property while entering into collaboration agreements with them and the project was launched thereafter. Soon after the agreement ₹ 86,74,455/- were collected from the prospective buyers for the commercial space. The Commission noted from the subsequent Balance Sheets and other financial statements and Director's Reports that another project at 5, Bhagwan Dass Road was taken up. There was also another project i.e. at 89, Nehru Place. With reference to the Balance Sheets and the financial statements of Skipper Sales, it was noted that the said company was giving loans to its sister concerns and companies and as per the Balance Sheet relatable to the financial year 1985-86, ₹ 17,04,08,637/- had been collected as booking amounts, and the amount pertains to both 22, Barakhamba Road and 89, Nehru Place Project. The Balance Sheet referred to above, indicated that ₹ 16,00,00,334/- had been given to sister companies and the cost of construction in respect of both the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Tilak Raj Talukia and Ratnakar Nama after making adjustments for the expenditure in respect of two lifts, overhead tanks etc. amounting to ₹ 85,26,578/-. Further ₹ 19,66,062.40 for the marble cladding and the black glasses. The cost of construction up to 12th floor was accordingly worked out as ₹ 5,97,02,963/-. The details indicated are as follows: Cost of construction for basement & Ground floor to 10th floor ₹ 3,74,21,011/- Cost of construction for 11th & 12th floor ₹ 36,89,312/- Cost of extra items as mentioned Above ₹ 85,26,578/- Cost of Black Glasses ₹ 19,66,062/- Amount paid to L&DO ₹ 10,00,000/- Amount paid to the Owners ₹ 71,00,000/- Total ₹ 5,97,02,963/- ₹ 50,74,751/- were added as 2% Brokerage, 1.5% Architect Fee and 5% Administrative Charges to the above figures thus making total ₹ 6,47,77,714/-. It was, therefore, held that a balance of ₹ 6,37,28,621/- was left. The Commission was of the view that the above amount was obviously used by giving loans to sister concerns. These companies utilized the said amount for their respective projects. The Chartered Accountants' report w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were un-audited statements and appear to have been compiled from whatever details were furnished by the Company. It is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for Tejwant Singh that complete documents were not produced before the Commission. The plea taken for non production was that they were seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation/Police officials. 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. In respect of Technology Parks Ltd. (in short 'TPL') there are two p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hali Ghaziabad had been transferred to Shikha for a consideration of ₹ 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. It was noted by the Commission that the sanctioned area of the project is 109000+13250 sq. ft. and the covered area is 177250 sq. ft. It was claimed that ₹ 2,30,52,833/- was spent for raising the structure. So far as plot no.26 Vaishali Group Housing Scheme of 4840 sq. yds. is concerned, the same was allotted to M/s Charanjit Kochar, a partnership firm (in short "Kochar") on leasehold basis by GDA. The Commission has noted that the address of M/s Charanjit Kochar is N-268 Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi and the price was ₹ 1.20 crores and 50% of the price had been deposited and possession was delivered. Building plans were also sanctioned. On failure of the allottee to pay the balance price along with interest, the allotment had been cancelled. Basement, ground floor and 8 more floors were sanctioned and the structure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pears that the amount claimed by GDA was deposited by Shikha and it was treated to be a fresh sanction. It is to be noted that Kochar never appeared before this Court during earlier proceedings. There was no negotiation with Kochar by the GDA and on the contrary negotiation was with Shikha. Claim of Kochar that the deposit was made by Shikha on its behalf does not warrant acceptance. Though it was submitted by TPL that area as available will be sufficient to take care of the claimants, there can be no definite direction to all claimants because original sanction related to 128 flats. After having entered into arrangement with Shikha TPL has no further role to play. Therefore, both TPL and Kochar go out of picture. 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
