BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 07-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
207
BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[I.A. Nos.108696, 108703, 108670 and 108681 of 2020]
In
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2017)
NOVEMBER 07, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
Interest – Real Estate Project-Amrapali Group of companies
– Reduction of interest on the outstanding dues to Noida and Greater
Authorities – Relief granted to projects other than Amrapali Project
– Pursuant thereto, I.As filed by the Noida Authority and Greater
Noida Authority seeking to recall orders directing reduction of
interest – Held: These directions (reducing interest) were passed in
the peculiar facts and circumstances in Amrapali Projects – The
dues payable to Noida or Greater Noida in respect of projects of
Amrapali Group of Companies would otherwise have been liable to
pay along with interest at certain rates – Since that would have put
additional burden on the entire project, it was deemed appropriate
to consider reduction in rate of interest – It is true that though it
was completely beyond the scope of instant matters to consider the
cases of other builders, Supreme Court did consider the case of
builders such as ACE group of companies and the matter was dealt
with in its order dated 10.06.2020 – However, at that juncture it
was not known that huge amount (losses) running into more than
Rs. 3000-4000 crores for Noida and Greater Noida Authorities,
would be in issue – In every case, the concerned builder had opted
for allocation of plot on the basis of brochure which had clearly
indicated the rate of interest – The allotment letter and consequential
lease deed carried the same intent – Thus, every builder was well
aware and had entered into transaction with Noida and Greater
Noida Authorities with open eyes – In cases where contractual terms
were sought to be invalidated Supreme Court has repeatedly
refrained from entering into such issues – The Court erred in granting
relief to projects other than Amrapali Group of Companies vide its
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 207
207
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
orders dated 10.06.2020, 19.08.2020 and 25.08.2020 – Therefore,
the said orders are recalled.
Disposing of the IAs, the Court
HELD: 1.1. In these proceedings this Court is principally
concerned with the plight of flat holders of Amrapali Group of
Companies. In order to see that the projects do not remain stalled
and the investment made by all the flat buyers comes out of cloud
of uncertainty, certain measures were adopted by this Court in
its order dated 23.07.2019. Those measures contemplated
restriction on the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to resume
the properties in question, as well as, cancellation of lease deed
granted  in favour of Amrapali Group of Companies and vesting
all the rights in favour of the Court Receiver and NBCC was
appointed to complete various projects. These directions were
passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances in Amrapali
Projects. It was in light of these directions that one of the issues
which came up for consideration before the Court related to
reduction in rate of interest. The dues payable to Noida or Greater
Noida in respect of projects of Amrapali Group of Companies
would otherwise have been liable to pay along with interest at
certain rates. Since that would have put additional burden on  the
entire project, it was deemed appropriate to consider reduction
in rate of interest. At that juncture, an application filed on behalf
of ACE group of companies was listed for the first time on
27.05.2020 by which time the note prepared by the learned Court
Receiver seeking reduction in rate of interest for Amrapali Group
of Companies was taken up on 25.05.2020 and the order was
reserved. The order dated 27.05.2020, as extracted hereinabove
noted the fact that similar matter was under consideration and
therefore reserved order in that matter. The record indicates, no
reply was filed by the concerned authorities nor were they may
aware of the impact of such application preferred by ACE Group
of Companies. [Paras 14 & 15][235-A-E]
1.2 The order dated 10.06.2020 did consider the case
projected by ACE group of companies in its application dated
27.05.2020 but as indicated earlier, there was no response on
behalf of the concerned authorities. It must be noted that this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
court in the present matter was not in any way concerned with
the facts and circumstances pertaining to any of the flat buyers in
projects of ACE Group

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.