(Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Chitra Sharma & Ors. ___________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Union of India & Ors. ________________________ Respondent(s)
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 744/2017, decided on March 21, 2018
(IA No. 30118/2018-impleading party and IA No. 30122/2018-Clarification/Direction and IA No. 30125/2018-impleading party and IA No. 30133/2018-impleading party and IA No. 30140/2018-impleading party and IA No. 32031/2018-impleading party and IA No. 32977/2018-Intervention Application and IA No. 32978/2018-Clarification/Direction and IA No. 33431/2018-Stay Application)
With
SLP(C) No. 24001/2017 (XI) (and IA No. 17043/2018-Clarification/Direction) W.P.(C) No. 782/2017 (X) W.P.(C) No. 803/2017 (X) W.P.(C) No. 860/2017 (X) (For Admission) W.P.(C) No. 783/2017 (X) W.P.(C) No. 805/2017 (X) (For Stay Application on IA 84812/2017) SLP(C) No. 24002/2017 (XI) (For Permission to File SLP/TP on IA 84838/2017 For Permission to File Additional Documents on IA 84839/2017 For Intervention/Impleadment on IA 84840/2017 and IA No. 88057/2017-Intervention/Impleadment and IA No. 88410/2017-Clarification/Direction and IA No. 88689/2017-Intervention Application and IA No. 88696/2017-Modification and IA No. 89329/2017-Intervention/Impleadment and IA No. 115034/2017-Intervention Application and IA No. 119047/2017-impleading party) W.P.(C) No. 950/2017 (X) SLP(C) No. 36396/2017 (XI) (For Admission and I.R. and IA No. 98200/2017-Exemption From Filing C/C of the Impugned Judgment and IA No. 98186/2017-Application For Impleadment of Respondents and IA No. 98181/2017-Permission to File SLP/TP and IA No. 98204/2017-Permission to File Additional Documents and IA No. 137592/2017-Clarification/Direction) Diary No(s). 33267/2017 (XI) (For Admission and I.R. and IA No. 129410/2017-Exemption From Filing C/C of the Impugned Judgment and IA No. 131630/2017-Intervention/Impleadment and IA No. 129408/2017-Permission to File SLP/TP and IA No. 129406/2017-Condonation of Delay in Refiling and IA No. 129413/2017-Permission to File Lengthy List of Dates)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Heard Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 – Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. (JAL).
2. Though many a contention has been raised by Mr. Das, yet, we are not inclined to entertain the same keeping in view our orders dated 11.09.2017 and 25.10.2017. We have been told by Mr. Das that JAL has deposited a sum of Rs. 550 crores before the Registry of this Court. It is submitted by Mr. Das that only 8% of the home buyers/allottees are inclined to take refund whereas others have expressed their inclination to have the flats.
3. We would intend to make it absolutely clear that, for the present, we are only concerned with those home buyers who intend to have refund. In the next phase, we may consider the grievances, if any, of the home buyers who intend to have the flats. In that regard, we think it appropriate to hear Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and Mr. Jayant Bhushan and Mr. Sanjay Hegde and others, learned senior counsel appearing for some Associations of home buyers who intend to have their flats.
4. As our order for deposit of Rs. 2000 crores has not been complied with, we intend to pass the following directions:
(a) JAL shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 200 crores in two instalments, as agreed by the Managing Director who is present in Court today. The first instalment of Rs. 100 crores shall be deposited by 15th April 2018 and the second instalment of Rs. 100 crores shall be deposited by 10th May 2018;
(b) It is submitted by Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal, learned amicus curiae that as per his portal an amount of Rs. 1300 crores, at present, is required to be refunded towards the principal sum for those home buyers who, as of today, seek refund. The figure of Rs. 1300 crores is as per the record of JAL.
In view of the aforesaid, we would require Mr. Agrawal to prepare a projectwise Chart indicating the number of persons in respect of that project and the stage of completion of the respective projects so that appropriate order can be passed for disbursement of the amount on pro-rata basis to the home buyers;
(c) Mr. Agrawal, learned amicus curiae shall keep the portal operational. However, the requests of only those persons on the portal who have sought refund, as of today will be considered at this stage;
(d) The submission of the home buyers who are seeking refund is that the developer is making demands towards monthly instalments. We direct that no demand towards outstanding or future instalments shall be raised by the developer to the flat buyers who have, as of today, expressed the option to obtain refund. The demands raised by the developer in respect of the home buyers who have already opted for refund till today, shall remain stayed;
(e) The IRP may proceed to finalise the resolution plan but the same shall be implemented after taking leave of this Court.
(f) The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) shall decide subject to the directions which we have given hereinabove.
5. Before we fix the next date, we must note that we have been apprised that Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel who was appointed to espouse the cause of the home buyers before the Committee of Creditors has expressed his inability to continue as such.
6. In view of the aforesaid, a need has arisen to appoint someone else in place of Mr. Shekhar Naphade and accordingly we appoint Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate. It is further clarified that Mr. Gaurav Agrawal shall be guided by our previous orders.
7. Let the matter be listed on 16th April 2018 so that this Court can take note of whether the developer has complied with the direction of depositing the first instalment and to pass directions with regard to disbursement of the amount deposited on pro-rata basis on the basis of the report submitted by Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal.
———
