2 December, 2017
A Bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R Bhanumati set aside an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing the auction of personal properties of the partners / ex-partners of a developer firm and also for directing the individual consumer / buyer / allottee to file complaint against the former or present proprietor of the developer firm.
The partners of developer firm Sai Apartment and Infrastructure Ltd had filed the appeal with the Supreme Court. They have evolved the plan for setting up residential project and was given licence by the Government of Punjab to develop the said plotted colony. The developer has the responsibility to provide basic infrastructure facility in the colony as per the terms of the agreement executed between the parties. Since basic amenities were not provided, some of the flat owners who had moved into their flats filed writ petition before the High Court.
The High Court has inter alia issued various directions -
(i) directing the Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab to constitute a Committee of three officers to identify the immovable properties of all the partners/directors/proprietors (former or present) of M/s Sai Apartments and Infrastructure and get value of those properties evaluated with the assistance of revenue department and to attach the same forthwith;
(ii) there shall be first charge on all such assets and there shall be no instrument of transferring interest, title etc. in those properties and any such transfer shall be deemed null and void;
(iii) the attached immovable assets to be sold and the sale proceeds to be expropriated against the expenditure to be incurred by the Government Agency on completion of the infrastructure facilities/development works.
Being aggrieved, the partners of the developer firm have filed this appeal
contending that the appellants are individual partners of the developer firm and
that they were never made a party to the writ petition in their individual
capacity nor were they issued any show cause notice for attachment of their
personal properties. It is the contention of the appellants that without hearing
them, the High Court ought not to have passed the order to sell the individual
properties of the partners in auction and directing expropriation of the same
for completion of the infrastructure facilities in the Vishranti colony.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the matter without going into
the merits of the dispute between the parties, set aside the impugned order and
remitted back the matter to the High Court for consideration of the matter
afresh after affording sufficient opportunities to both the parties and not
expressed opinion on the merits of the matter.
Tweet
Read the Order of Supreme Court dated 29.11.2017
Can part-time lecturers be regularized? Read Supreme Court's Answer
December 5, 2017
December 5, 2017
Exemption under Section 80(1A) of Income Tax Act, Delhi High Court upheld decision of ITAT
December 4, 2017
December 4, 2017
How to Protect rights of married women by using various acts and applicable sections
December 3, 2017
December 2, 2017
Supreme Court warns Trial courts against granting adjournments after commencement of evidence
December 2, 2017
December 1, 2017