Summary
In a long-stalled property-development dispute involving an elderly owner, the Court directed deposit of Rs 20 crore and return of possession with removal of the developer’s guards, followed by release of the deposit. It found continuation of specific-performance litigation unjust on the particular circumstances. Whether the developer was entitled to additional damages was referred to a named former Supreme Court judge as arbitrator.
Issues
- What relief should resolve possession and specific performance after prolonged failure to develop.
- Whether entitlement to further damages required separate arbitration.
Held
- The developer held assigned development rights but no meaningful construction had occurred despite the contractual timetable and passage of many years. The Court fashioned possession and payment directions in light of the overall circumstances. (¶ 17–20)
- The owner was to deposit Rs 20 crore with the Supreme Court Registry within four weeks and notify Prajita. Within seven days of receipt, Prajita was to withdraw its guards and hand over possession before the Mumbai Police Commissioner or nominated senior officer. A panchnama was to be filed within a week of handover, after which the developer could withdraw the deposit. (¶ 20)
- Continuation of the decade-old specific-performance claim was considered unjust given the competing development interests and circumstances. The Court did not treat the ordered payment as necessarily resolving any additional damages entitlement. (¶ 21–22)
- The question whether Prajita could recover damages beyond Rs 20 crore was referred to arbitration by Justice P. Venkatarama Reddy, former Supreme Court judge, according to law. (¶ 22)
Result
Civil appeal and miscellaneous application disposed of with Rs 20 crore deposit, supervised possession handover and release directions; additional-damages dispute referred to the named arbitrator.