DATTATRAYA BABURAO WALAWALKAR AND OTHERS versus SIDDHIVINAYAK CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 15-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 2 S.C.R. 905 
DATTATRAYA BABURAO WALAWALKAR AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
SIDDHIVINAYAK CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED AND 
OTHERS 
Civil Appeal No. 2981 of2016 
MARCH 15, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Trust & Charities: 
B 
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Development Control 
C 
Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991-Reg33(7) - Trust property 
- Sale of. by trustees - Sale-cum-development agreement -
Conditions to be fi1/filled - Trust property largely tenanted and on 
very meagre rents - Order by Charity Commissioner permitting to 
sell the trust property in favour of, 'R' Corpn-developer for a 
monetary consideration of Rs. 6 crores - Order passed by the 
D 
Commissioner set aside by the courts below - In appeal before this 
Court, the Trust directed to issue a fresh advertisement regarding 
the re-development of the properties - Initially 9 persons came 
forward, but ultimately offers received from 'R' Construction Co. 
and the developer - Held: Condition of containing a minimum of 
E 
70% irrevocable written consent of the occupiers of the old structure 
was to be fuljil/ed - Out of 105 tenancies of the trust, 65 consents 
were obtained - Another lJ consents were obtained which were 
subsequently revoked - On addition of lJ to 65 as consents once 
given are irrevocable, it would yield to around 74% of the occupiers 
of the old building - Initial offer itself was a fair offer - Developer 
F 
is willing to up the offer from Rs.8 crores to 8.25 crores and the 
same has been accepted by the Trust - Thus, the order of the Division 
Bench of the High Court set aside. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the fact that 9 persons initially 
came forward but they all petered out and ultimately left only R 
Corpn. and R Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in the fray, the fact that R 
Constructions Pvt. Ltd. was the only other bidder which offered 
a sum.ofRs.7 crores about 5 years after the said offer ofR Corpn. 
of Rs.6 crores (which improved its offer to Rs.7 crorcs before 
905 
G 
H 
906 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
the Division Bench of the High Court) shows that the offer made 
by R Corpn. appears to be a reasonable one. The sale-cum-
development agreement has been entered into under Regulation 
33(7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater 
Mumbai, 1991, and has necessarily to fulfil one condition without 
which the sale-cum-development agreeme.nt cannot go forward 
at all-it has to contain a minimum of 70% irrevocable written 
consent of the occupiers of the old structure. Out of 105 tenancies 
of the Trust, 65 consents have been obtained, and another 11 
consents have also been obtained which, however, have 
subsequently beeu revoked. If these 11 to 65 were added as 
consents once given are irrevocable, the mathematics of the 
situation would yield a figure of roughly 74% of the occupiers of 
the old building. [Para 12] [912-H; 913-A] 
1.2 The initial offer itself was a fair offer in the facts and 
circumstances. The statement made by the counsel is recorded 
that his client was willing to up that offer from Rs.8 crores that 
had been offered by him before this Court to Rs. 8.25 crores, all 
other conditions of the report of the trustees remaining the same. 
In the facts and circumstances of these cases, it would be for the 
benefit of the Trust if the said offer is accepted by the Trustees 
and the same has been accepted. Therefore, the order of the 
Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. [Para 13] [913-B-
C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2981 
of2016. 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 2983, 2984, 2985 & 2986 of 2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18. l 0.2012 in Letters Patent 
Appeal No. 103 of2012 in Writ Petition No. 11070 of201 I passed by 
the High Court of Judicature at Rombay. 
C. U Singh, C.A. Sundaram, Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Advs., Ms. Abba R. 
Sharma, Santosh Paul, Arvind Gupta, Vishwas M. Kulkarni, Raghav 
Shekhar, Ms.Arti Singh, Mahesh Agarwal,Ankur Saigal, Rishab Parikh, 
E.C. Agrawala, Gaurav Agrawal, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Prashant G. Karande, 
Anshuman Animesh, Rajshri Ashutosh Dubey, Nishant R. 
Katneshwarkar, Sumit Goel, .Ms. Sanjana Rama Chandran, Ms. 
Akaanksha Mehra, Advs. for the appearing parties. 
. DATTATRAYA BABURAO WALAWALKAR v. 
SIDDHIVINAYAK CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. F. NARIMAN, J. I. We have heard learned counsel for the 
parties. 
2. These appeals are· agai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.