DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 07-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. 
I 
\ 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
A 
v. 
SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. 
APRIL 7, 2005 
[RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 129, 136 and 142: 
Substantive Justice-Rendering of-Appointment of Justice Bahri 
Commission-Direction to look into diversion of funds of Skipper Towers- In C 
respect of project 'B '-On the basis of the documents, accounts of Company 
were found to be cooked up-Company found to have plundered the purchasers 
and harnessed everything to its personal and private advantage-Objections 
to the Report-Held: Report of the Commission accepted as it is on the basis 
of detailed data- Objection not acceptable as the cost given by the Company D 
is hypothetical and based on incomplete and manipulated data. 
Diversion of funds of Skipper Towers-In respect of project 'T'-
Company transferred its rights to other Company-Exonerated having 
transferred its rights-Transferee Company granted time to pay the claimants-
Permission for construction subject to certain conditions-Direction for E 
appointment of a Judicial Officer to scrutinize the claims of all the claimants. 
F 
Justice Bahri Commission was appointed pursuant to the order 
passed by this Court, directing it to look into diversion of funds of Skipper 
Tower (Pvt.) Ltd. In respect of the project at 22, Barakhamba Road, 
information furnished to the Commission by the Company were in the 
sha.pe of copies of ledgers and a report of Chartered Accountant. 
Commission obtained the copies of the Balance Sheet and Director's 
repOits of various companies of Skipper group from the Registrar of ' 
Companies. The Commission found that Skipper Sales Ltd. and Skipper 
Towers Ltd. were two Companies; that Skipper Sales used to give loans G 
to its sister concerns; that the project was started initially by Skipper Sales 
(Pvt.) Ltd. in 1983. As per balance sheet and financial statement of Skipper 
Towers Rs. 12,85,06,335 was collected as booking amount. Company stated 
that in respect of the Project Rs. 10,64,51,055 was spent during the period 
from 1983 to 1992. But the report of Government valuer showed that the 
313 
I-I 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A cost of construction of the basement upto 10th floor was Rs. 36,89,312. 
B 
The total expenditure for the project was Rs. 6,47,77,714. The balance of 
Rs. 6,37 ,28,621 was used for giving loans to sister concerns. The 
Commission observed that the Skippers plundered the purchasers and 
harnessed everything to personal and private advantage. 
Company objected to the report of the Commission that the cost of 
construction had been taken at a lower figure, and with reference to 
CPWD rates and Plinth Area rates of MCD, the cost of construction was 
much higher. 
C 
In respect of the project Technology Parks Ltd. at Vaishali Parks 
Apartment, Plot Nos.23 and 26 were allotted by Ghaziabad Development 
Authority to 'K' and 'C' respectively. The possession of the plots were 
handed over to them. As they had not paid the bahince 50% of the amount, 
the allotments were cancelled. In the meantime 'K' had constructed bare 
structure upto 9 floors including the basement against sanction of 15 floors, 
D but no booking had been done for sale of flats. 'C' claimed that the total 
cost of construction incurred by it was Rs. 2,17,00,000 and it h~d collected 
Rs. 1,43,29,344 as booking amount. 'K' and 'C' transferred their rights 
to Technology Parks Ltd. (TPL) for a consideration of Rs. 8775 lakhs and 
30 lakhs respectively. Subsequently both the plots were transferred to 'S' 
by Technology Parks Ltd. (TPL) 619 people claimed to have made the 
E booking in the respective plots. Out of them 360 claimants sought refund 
of their amounts and 230 claimed for allotment. There were only 28 
sanctioned plots as against 230 claimants. 'S' had deposited the balance 
amount with GDA and it was considered fresh sanction. 
p 
Before this Court allottees claiming allotment were ready to accept 
G 
the refund. TPL submitted that since it had transferred the interest to 'S', 
it had no subsisting interest. 'C' claimed that the deposit made by 'S' to 
GDA was on its behalf. 'S' submitted that if it is granted time, it will pay 
all the claimants and if construction is permitted, it will refund the amount 
with interest. 
Adjourning the matter with certain directions, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is substance in the Commission's findings that 
the accounts were cooked up in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.