VINOD GOYAL & OTHERS versus VISHRANTI CITY RESIDENTS WELFARE SOCIETY & OTHERS

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 29-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(j 
H 
(2017] 11 S.C.R. 258 
VINOD GOYAL & OTHERS 
v. 
VISHRANTI CITY RESIDENTS WELFARE 
SOCIETY & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. l 9962 of2017) 
NOVEMBER29,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, J.r.J 
Urban Development -
Housing project -
External 
development work and infernal development work - Dispute between 
developer firm and a/lo/lees - Direclion by the High Court for 
auction of the personal properties of the partners/ex-partners of 
the developer.firm as also direction to huyerlal/ottee to ji/e complaint 
against !he fon11er or present proprietors of the developer .firm -
On appeal, held: There is diopute between the parties as to who has 
to bear the charges of external development and the charges for 
electricity, water and sewerage and whether the said charges have 
already been paid by the purchasers - In spite of many orders 
passed by the High Court, efforts not taken by the developer to 
complete the remaining external and internal development work or 
even if efforts taken, they did not fructifv - Thus, the High Court 
passed the order of auction - When the matter was pending before 
this Cvrlr/, the developer took steps to ensure supp~v <!f electricity 
by selling one of the properties - Further opportunity to be afforded 
to the parties to re.wive the displlle between the parties and facilitate 
completion of the project - Hence, the matter remitted to the High 
Court for consideration of the maller afresh. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 19962 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2016 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 14927 of 2015. 
Puncct Bali, Sr. Adv., Aditya Soni, Sh rec Pal Singh, Advs. for the 
Appellants. 
Dr. J. P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, Vince! Dhanda, 
N. A. Usmani, Tarun Kumar, Ms. Koma! Narula, Surcsh C. Gupta, 
258 
VINOD GOYAL & OTHERS v. VISHRANTI CITY RESIDENTS 
259 
WELFARE SOCIETY_& OTHERS 
Birendra Kumar Mishra, Ms. Poonam Aley, Mrs. Priya Puri, Vijay 
A 
Lakshmi Gautam, Vaibhav Srivastav, S. K. Puri, Sanchar Anand,Apoorv 
Singhal, Rajiv Singhal, Devendra Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Ms. Uttara 
Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Ms·. Bhavana Duhoon, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22.07.2016 passed 
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in and by which the High 
Court directed auction of the personal properties of the partners/ex-
partners_ of the developer firm and also directing the individual consumer/ 
buyer/allottcc to file complaint against the former or present proprietors 
of the developer firm. 
3. The appellants are partners in the developer firm-MIS Sai 
Apartments and Infrastructure Ltd. which has evolved the plan for setting 
B 
c 
up residential project.and was given licence by the Government of Punjab 
D 
to develop the said plotted colony. The developer firm was to provide 
the basic infrastructure in the colony as per the terms of the allotment 
agreement executed by the developer firm with its allottees. Since basic 
amenities were not provided, some of the flat owners who had moved 
into their flats filed writ petition before the High Court. In the said writ 
E 
petition, vide order dated 15.09.2015, the High Court directed Punjab 
State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to provide temporary 
dectricity connections to thirty flats and the corporation supplied electricity 
to thirty houses at the rate of Rs.13/- per unit as per the schedule of 
tariff notified by PSPCL for temporary domestic connection. The 
developer applied to PSPCL for getting NOC for permanent electricity 
F 
connection. The NOC was granted by PSPCL to Mis Sai Apartments 
and Infrastructure vide its office memo No. 1392 dated 25.03.2014 
directing the builder:- (i) to pay an amount of Rs.1,5:),89,250/- for 
developing Local Distribution system; (ii) to deposit cost of Rs. 49,40, 149/ 
- which was the cost that would be incurred for erecting separate 5 KM 
G 
( long 11 KV feeder with the requisite cable from the Sub-station Dhakoli 
feeder. 
4. As the conditions for obtaining NOC were not complied with' 
by the developer, the flat owners filed other writ petition before the High 
Court seeking direction to the authorities including PSPCL to regularize 
H 
260 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] PI S.C.R. 
the electricity connections in the said colony. The High Court has inter
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.