TITILE OF THE CASE: BIKRAM CHATTERJEE and OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA.

DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT:21ST AUGUST

PETITIONER: BIKRAM CHATTERJEE 

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

APPEAL No.: 940/2017

BENCH: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA AND HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT.

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

A writ petition was filed by some homebuyers of projects aggrieved by the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and the whole process was initiated by National Company Law Tribunal filed by the Bank of Baroda.

The Supreme court after hearing all the cases that were levied against Amrapali Group decided to order a Forensic Audit to be taken up of all the sub heads under Amrapali Group.

In addition to that the authorities namely Noida and Greater Noida Authority said that the Amrapali Group has various mortgage deeds to be paid to the authorities and the authorities challenged that their claim was much more important than that of the homebuyers and concluded that at the first place the Amrapali Group will have to clear the debts of the authority then only the homebuyers will get their authorised properties.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the claim of Noida and Greater Noida authorities are valid or not?

Whether the claim that is raised by the concerned banks against Amrapali Group is valid or not?

Whether the registration of the Amrapali Group under the RERA (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 is to be cancelled or not?

What kind of compensation is to be provided to the homebuyers considering the present scenario?

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES:

It was contended on behalf of the homebuyers that:

  1. The dues that are to be paid to the authorities cannot be treated along with the dues that are to be paid to the homebuyers the dues of the homebuyers should be given higher priority.
  2. The concerned authorities should issue the Occupation certificate for the buildings of the homebuyers, despite of the fact that the dues of the authorities are not made cleared by the Amrapali Group.
  3. The authorities were very lenient in their approach and did not take any kind of step against the Amrapali Group despite the various acts that are continued till date all these acts include non- payment of installments that are stipulated under lease deeds despite the fact that nearly all the amount have been made by the homebuyers.
  4. The Authorities poses a duty upon to act fairly and reasonably under Article 21 of the Constitution of India where The Public Trust Doctrine is enshrined to look upon this doctrine is very much applicable in this case.
  5. By being extremely lenient in handling the Amrapali Group the authorities have breached the Public Trust Doctrine and they should not be entitled to receive the lease deeds.
  6. In, fact even the banks were negligent on their part they provided loans to the company in spite of the fact that no projects have been developed and no kind of investigation was done on part of the banks before sanctioning loans.
  7. The RERA registration of the Amrapali Group to conduct various projects because of the delay in completing all the projects.

It was contended on the part of the authorities that:

  1. The authorities claimed that the lease deeds should be considered first and should be given precedent over other dues including the dues of the banks and that of the homebuyers.
  2. The authorities claimed that no breach of trust has occurred under the doctrine of Public Trust and the transfer of the lease had already happened after the payment of 10 % premium and this was carefully thought- out policy by state government.
  3. According to the authorities they were not at all lenient while carrying out their duty they were repeatedly sending notices to the Amrapali Group for clearing their dues. The authorities also mentioned that they did not took the step of cancelling the lease deeds if that happens it would lead to the demolishment of certain constructed structures.
  4. The Occupation certificate cannot be issued until the lease deeds are paid.

It was contended on part of the banks that:

  1. The banks contended that they were very much diligent in sanctioning the loans and took up all those acts necessary to look up how the company utilizes the funds post sanctioning.
  2. All those mortgage deeds that took place between the banks and the group were all valid and the bank have the authority over the projects till the amount of loan is repaid back.
  3. The bank claimed that the homebuyers are not secured creditors and thus don’t have their concerned right or interest based on flat buyer agreement.

DIRECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

  1. The RERA registration of the Amrapali Group under the RERA Act is to be cancelled and the projects that are under the group shall be carried on by NBCC India ltd.
  2. The lease deeds that were granted to Amrapali Group are to be cancelled and the rights are now to be vested upon a Court Receiver and in this case the Court Receiver was Senior Advocate, Shri R. Venkataramani.
  3. The banks and the concerned authorities cannot sell the flats belonging to the homebuyers to recover their dues all their dues are to be recovered by selling other properties belonging to the Amrapali Group.
  4. All the rights of lease shall lie on part of the Court Receiver and he will appoint a third party on his behalf to carry on all those works like the tripartite agreement and to ensure that all the titles get transferred to the homebuyers and the possession has to be transferred to them.

CITATIONS:

WEBSITE INDIA KANOON.

WEBSITE OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

INDIAN JOURNAL OF LAW AND LEGAL RESEARCH

WEBSITE JUDICATE ME.

WEBSITE OF INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA.

RERA ACT.

AUTHOR NAME:

DEBADRITA ACHARJEE

LLYOD SCHOOL OF LAW

GREATER NOIDA.