M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - (1.) On May 6th, 1995 this Court delivered judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622. Thereafter, various other issues regarding the Skipper group of Companies continued to pose serious issues of law and fact. Sometimes, it looked like a maze which could baffle lawyers and Courts alike. More claims with regard to Jhandevalan property - which was the subject-matter of the above case, - of persons who claimed to be purchasers of space proposed to be built at Jhandevalan came before us. In addition, claims of similar purchasers of property at Barakhamba Road and also in regard to Technology Park, came before us. In this judgment, we propose to deal with certain issues concerning the Jhandevalan property which have remained undecided or not decided finally in the earlier orders of this Court.
(2.) In order to understand how these issues arise, it is necessary to go back (A) to the long history of events set out in the above said judgment and (B) to the subsequent events. In Part (C) we shall deal with four issues which have crystallised. In the rest of this judgment Delhi Development Authority is described as DDA and Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd is described as Skipper, for convenience. PART A
(3.) In October, 1980, Skipper became the highest bidder for purchase of a plot of land at Jhandevalan in Delhi which was advertised for sale for Rs. 9.82 crores and deposited 25% of the price. The balance was to be deposited as per the tender schedule. Skipper defaulted in spite of seven extensions during January 1981 to April 1982. When proceedings for cancellation of the bid were in the offiing, Skipper moved the Court and obtained a stay order on 29-5-1982 and started making representations. DDA appointed a Committee to work out a formula and pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee. Skipper was asked to enter into a revised agreement incorporating fresh terms. Skipper raised objections to these proposals from 1984 till 1987 but finally the agreement was entered into on 11-8-1987. Even before permission to enter was however granted under the revised agreement, Skipper started selling the space to be built in the proposed structure and started receiving monies. Though Skipper paid the 1st instalment much beyond the time, it did not pay the second instalment but furnished, Bank guarantees which were found to be defective. It however made some token payments to DDA. Subsequently, CWP. 2371/1989 was filed for a direction to DDA to sanction plans/permit construction at its risk. On 19-3-1990. High Court of Delhi permitted construction in accordance with sanctioned plan subject to deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs in two instalments and 1.94 crores in one month. DDA filed SLP(C) 6338/90 and 6339/90. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court passed an order in the WP. 2371/89 on 21-12-1990 directing payment of Rs. 8.12 crores approx. in 30 days and stopped further construction w.e.f. 9-1-1991 till payment and stated that in default, the revised agreement dated 11-8-1987 would stand cancelled and DDA would be entitled to re-enter the plot. Reasons for the order were given on 14-1-1991, Skipper defaulted but approached this Court on 29-1-1991 in SLP(C) 186/91 when this Court passed an interim order for deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores in one month and Rs. 2.5 crores before 8-4-1991 and Skipper was expressly prohibited from inducting any person in the building and from creating any rights in favour of third parties. In spite of it, Skipper issued advertisement on 4-2-1991 and on latter dates in newspapers in Delhi and invited further purchasers to purchase the space in the proposed building. Sales agreements were entered into by certain purchasers in spite of DDA's warning dated 13-2-1991 published in newspapers. SLP (C) 186/91 was dismissed on 25-1-1993.;