{"id":263285,"date":"1995-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995"},"modified":"2015-10-08T06:27:45","modified_gmt":"2015-10-08T00:57:45","slug":"delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, Supl. (2) 160 JT 1995 (1)\t571<\/div>\n
Author: P Sawant<\/div>\n
Bench: Sawant, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nMOHAN, S. (J)\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 160 JT 1995 (1)\t571\n 1995 SCALE  (1)734\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORDER\n<\/p>\n
1.   The facts leading to this interlocutory application are
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
On  8.10.1980, an auction was held by the Delhi\t Development
\nAuthority
\n573<\/span>
\n(hereinafter  referred\tto as the ‘DDA’) of  the  Commercial
\nTower  Plot,  Jhandewalan, Block E, New Delhi  ad  measuring
\nabout  540  sq. mtrs.  The first respondent,  M\/s.   Skipper
\nConstruction  Co. (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to  as\t the
\n‘Skipper’)  was the highest bidder, its bid being  Rs.\t9.82
\ncrores.\t  As  per  the conditions of  the  auction,  Skipper
\ndeposited 25% of the bid amount.  The said bid was confirmed
\nby  the DDA on 14.10.1980. Skipper was called upon  to\tmake
\nthe  balance of payment of 75% of the bid amount  within  90
\ndays as per the conditions of the auction.\n<\/p>\n
2.The  Government  of  India issued directions\tto  the\t DDA
\naccepting the request of Skipper and granting an  indulgence
\nto it by directing the DDA to reschedule the recovery of 75%
\nof   the  bid  amount  with  interest  from   the   Skipper.
\nConsequent  to\tthis, DDA called upon the Skipper  to  enter
\ninto  fresh  agreement, licence agreement and  furnish\tbank
\nguarantees in compliance with the directions of the  Central
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
3.On  11.8.1987, Skipper entered into a\t licence  agreement,
\npaid 50% of the original bid and secured payment of the bal-
\nance  50%  of the bid and interest at the rate\tof  18%\t per
\nannum  thereon\tby submitting bank  guarantees\tfor  Rs.9.82
\ncrores,\t in  terms  of which a sum  of\tapproximately  1.944
\ncrores was required to be paid as each instalment.  A  total
\nof 5 instalments was payable every six months, the first be-
\ning due on 15.9.1987 and the last on or about 15.9.1989.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Against the first instalment of Rs.1.944\t  crores
\nfailing due on 15.9.1987, DDA recovered about Rs.88.76 lakhs
\nby encashment of the bank guarantee on\t7.12.1987.Thereafter
\nthe first respondent did not pay in terms of the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
5.   On 4.10.1988, the Lt.Governor issued a direction at the
\nrequest\t of Skippe, deferring recovery from Skipper  of\t the
\n2nd instalment as per the agreement dated 11.8.1987 till one
\nmonth after the sanctioning of the building plans.\n<\/p>\n
6.   In\t August,  1989,\t the  first  respondent\t filed\twrit
\npetition  in the High Court of Delhi, being CWP\t No.2371  of
\n1989.\tThe  principal relief sought in\t the  writ  petition
\nrelated to sanctioning of building plans and permission\t for
\nconstruction.\tAn  interim order was passed  directing\t the
\nSkipper\t to  furnish  fresh bank guarantee  since  the\tbank
\nguarantee  furnished  earlier had lapsed.  The DDA  did\t not
\nencash\tthe fresh bank guarantee which was defective.\tTime
\nand  again the DDA represented to the Court that the  monies
\nwere outstanding from the Skipper and no indulgence ought to
\nbe shown to them till the payment of the outstanding  amount
\nof  over  Rs. 3 crores under the principal  sum\t itself\t was
\ndeferred from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
7.   On\t 16.2.1990, the Lt.Governor revoked the order  dated
\n4.10.1988 deferring the payment of instalments.\t As a result
\nthe  entire sum because payable in one lump  sum.   However,
\nthis  order  of the Lt.\t Governor was stayed by\t the  Court.
\nThus,  it became necessary for the DDA to grant\t conditional
\nand provisional sanction to plans of the building subject to
\nthe payment of monies due to the DDA.\n<\/p>\n
8.   On 19.3.1990, an interim order was passed by the  Delhi
\nHigh  Court by which Skipper was permitted to commence\tcon-
\nstruction without first depositing the dues
\n574<\/span>
\nof  the\t DDA.  Against this order an appeal  was  preferred.
\nThe  Division Bench directed the payment of a token  sum  of
\nRs.5  lacs which was offered by the Skipper as a gesture  of
\ngoodwill  within 2 days; a sum of Rs.15 lacs within 15\tdays
\nand  Rs.1.944  crores within one month to the DDA.   It\t was
\nfurther directed that the quantum of monies and the mode  of
\npayment will be decided at the time of final disposal of the
\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n
9.Even\tthis  order was not complied  with.  Notwithstanding
\nthis, the Skipper approached the Court once again for exten-
\nsion of time to make payment and for direction to construct.
\nThe  Court extended the time by one month on 16.4.1990,\t af-
\nfording\t liberty  to the DDA to encash the  bank  guarantee.
\nThe  bank  guarantee  could not be encashed  because  A\t was
\nconditional By then the entire monies had fallen due.  Those
\namounts had not been paid.  The DDA filed SLP (C) Nos. 6338-
\n6339 of 1990 against the interim orders dated 19.3.1990\t and
\n16.4.1990  passed by the High Court of Delhi.  By  an  order
\ndated  3.5 A 990 Ohs Court stayed further  construction\t and
\nmade it conditional upon payment of Rs. 1. 1944 crores.
\n10   Suit  No. 1875 of 1990 was files by the Skipper  for  a
\ndirection  that the DDA ought not to insist upon payment  by
\ncash  or  draft\t and ought to be  directed  to\tencash\tbank
\nguarantee.    The  learned  Vacation  Judge  issued   orders
\ndirecting the DDA to invoke the bank guarantee. however, the
\nsuit was ultimately dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
11.  On 21.12.1990, a division Bench of the Delhi High Court
\ndismissed  CWP.No.2371 of 1989 directing Skipper to  pay  to
\nthe  DDA by cash or demand draft a sum of Rs.  8,12,68,789\/-
\nwithin\t30 days; to stop construction till payment is  made;
\nand in the event of non-payment by the Skipper, DDA would be
\nentitled  to enter upon the property and forfeit the  monies
\nreceived by the DDA.\n<\/p>\n
12.  On 14.1.1991, detailed reasons for its operative  order
\ncame to be rendered by the Division Bench of the Delhi\tHigh
\nCourt  with further direction giving effect to clause 15  of
\nthe licence agreement dated 11. 8.1987 that in the event  of
\nnon-compliance\tof the payment by the Skipper  the  property
\nshall  stand vested in the DDA, free from all  encumbrances,
\nin addition to the forfeiture of the monies.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Against  the dismissal of CWP No.2371 of  1989  Skipper
\nfiled SLP (C) No. 186 of 1991 before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
14.  On 29.1.1991, a Division Bench of this Court passed  an
\ninterim\t order\t(in  which one of us,  P.B.  Sawant,J.,\t was
\nparty).\t It inter alia reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1) That the petitioners herein shall deposit
\n\t      a sum of Rs.2.5 crores (Rupees two crores\t and
\n\t      fifty lacs only) in cash\/ bank draft with\t the
\n\t      Delhi  Development Authority within one  month
\n\t      from  today and the petitioners  will  further
\n\t      deposit  similar amount by cash\/bank draft  by
\n\t      8th April 1991.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  That  be petitioners shall be  permitted
\n\t      to resume the construction of the building  in
\n\t      question\tonly after making the first  deposit
\n\t      as stated in clause (i) above\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) That  if be petitions  to do  posit\t the
\n\t      amounts  as  aforesaid the  Delhi\t Development
\n\t      Authority\t will be free to act  in  accordance
\n\t      with  the impugned order dated 21st  December,
\n\t      1990 of High Court in CWP No.2371 of 1980.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      575<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (iv)  ‘Mat  the petitioners shall\t not  induct
\n\t      any person in the building or create any right
\n\t      in favour of any third party.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (v)   That  the matter be listed\tfor  further
\n\t      orders before this Court on 9th April, 1991.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.  On 4.2.1991, in violation of the agreement and in gross
\ncontempt  of  the  above order, the  Skipper  issued  adver-
\ntisement  in  the leading newspapers seeking to\t create\t 3rd
\nparty rights.\n<\/p>\n
16.  On\t 25.1.1993, SLP(C) No. 186 of 1991 was dismissed  by
\nthis  Court.   By  virtue of the above\torder,\tthe  DDA  on
\n10.2.1993  re-entered  and took physical possession  of\t the
\nsaid  property, free from all encumbrances; monies  paid  by
\nthe Skipper were forfeited.\n<\/p>\n
17.  Notwithstanding  all these, Skipper filed\tyet  another
\nsuit on the original side of the High Court of Delhi,  being
\nSuit No.770 of 1993 for the relief of:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  permanent\t injuction   restraining   the\t DDA\tfrom
\ninterferring with the title and possession of the property;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) for mandatory injuction directing the DDA to  recompute
\nthe principal amount and interest payable by Skipper;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  for  a declaration that the  present\tcalculations
\nare wrong;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) for  a  declaration that  re-entry\/  re-possession\t and
\ndetermination  of the rights of Skipper are bad in  law\t and
\nnonset;\n<\/p>\n
(v)  for  a  declaration  that all dues have  been  paid  by
\nSkipper to the DDA;\n<\/p>\n
and\n<\/p>\n
(vi) a\tdeclaration that clause 15 of the Licence  Agreement
\ndated 11. 8.1987 is non-est and in bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
18. On service of notice, DDA filed application, I.A.No.8500
\nof 1993 in Suit No.770 of 1993, for rejection of the  plaint
\nas  all\t the issues raised by Skipper were  resjudicata\t and
\neven  otherwise\t the  plaint was barred by  law.   The\tsaid
\napplication is pending disposal.\n<\/p>\n
19.  On 8.11.93, DDA issued notices for auction of the\tsaid
\nproperty.   The 2nd respondent sought to implead  itself  in
\nthe  suit and on 1.12.1993 filed an application for stay  of
\nauction which was opposed by the DDA.\n<\/p>\n
20.  On\t 9.101993, a learned single Judge of the Delhi\tHigh
\nCourt allowed the auction to proceed with and restrained the
\nDDA  from  accepting or confirming the bid  at\tthe  auction
\nscheduled for 10. 12.1993. Aggrieved by this order DDA filed
\nSLP(C)\tNo. 21000 of 1993 against the interim order  of\t the
\nDelhi  High  Court.   Besides  the  above  proceedings,\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in a writ petition stayed the notice of
\nauction\t by  the  DDA.\tThe City  Civil\t (Munsif)  Court  at
\nGhaziabad  (UP) passed orders of status qua in respect of  a
\nflat  in  the  said building in November  1993.\t  Thus,\t the
\nauction to be held on 10. 12.1993 was disrupted.  Once again
\nthe attempt of DDA to auction the flats could not  fructify.
\nSince  the  method of auction as not  yielding\tresults\t DDA
\ndecided to invite tenders for the sale of the said  property
\nas  an\talternative method.   Accordingly,  notice  inviting
\ntenders\t  was  published  in  the  leading   newspapers\t  on
\n31.1.1994.   There  was\t only  one  tender  that   too\t was
\nconditional.  Therefore,
\n576<\/span>
\nthe same was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
21.  On 28.9.1994, the DDA once again caused publication  of
\nnotice\tinviting tenders.  The DDA received  three  tenders.
\nThe   highest  acceptable  tender  was\tof  M\/s.    Banganga
\nInvestments  Pvt.Ltd. It is under these circumstances,\tI.A.
\nNo. 9 of 1994 was filed to accord permission to confirm\t the
\nbid  for  the grant of lease hold rights in  favour  of\t M\/s
\nBanganga Investments Pvt.Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
23.   Mr.Arun  Jaitely,\t learned  senior  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioner  urges  that the first respondent  (Skipper)\t has
\nindulged  in  abuse of process of law more than\t once.\t The
\norder  of the Division Bench of the Delhi High\tCourt  dated
\n21.12.90  reported  in (1991) DLT 636 at  page\t647  clearly
\nenables\t the DDA to take over plot along with the  buildings
\nthereon\t free from all encumbrances and forfeit\t the  entire
\namount\tpaid  by the first respondent in the  event  of\t the
\npayment,  as  stated in the order of the  High\tCourt  dated
\n21.10.1990  was\t not forthcoming.  SLP(C) No.  186  of\t1991
\nfiled  against that order was dismissed.  To  challenge\t the
\norder of the Division Bench as confirmed by this Court is  a
\ngross abuse of the process of court.\n<\/p>\n
24. The sale of space to various flat owners is in violation
\nof  law and judicial directions.  That can confer  no  right
\nupon  the Hat owners.  In view of the categorical  direction
\nof the Delhi High Court that the flat shall vest in DDA free
\nof all encumbrances, such a sale is also in violation of the
\nagreement between DDA and Skipper entered into August, 1987.
\nThe  order of this Court made on 21.9.1992  clearly  indicts
\nSkipper for inducting any person in building or creating any
\nright in favour of the third party.  The alleged creation of
\nthird  party  right,  is  also vitiated\t by  fraud  for\t the
\nfollowing reasons:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  The judgment of the Delhi High Court (1991) DLT 636  at
\npage 647 notes that the counsel for the Skipper Construction
\nhas contended that the interest of 870 buyers of space\twill
\nsuffer.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)The\t association  of  flat owners  claim  to  have\t1200
\nmembers.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)M\/s.   Skipper Construction in their SLP(C)No.  186  of
\n1991 stated that there are 815flat owners in the property.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)Delhi  High Court directed M\/s Skipper  Construction  to
\nfurnish\t a list of flat owners and on 17.11.93\tM\/s  Skipper
\nConstruction claimed that they have 2700 flat owners.\n<\/p>\n
25.  It is obvious that bulk of the interests\t  created is
\nclearly vitiated by fraudulent\t   acts of the alleged\tflat
\nowners\tand\/or\tthe Skipper.  In any case, the\tDDA  has  no
\nliability  qua\tthe said flat owners who have  entered\tinto
\nalleged transactions on their own risk and consequences.\n<\/p>\n
26.  A perusal of Application I.A.No.3 of 1994 will  clearly
\nshow  that  the agreements filed by Mrs. Anjana\t Khosla\t are
\ndated  26.11.1992.  That itself will clearly  show  how\t the
\norder  dated 29.1.1991 has been violated.  Having regard  to
\nthe  sanctioned\t space of 20,000 sq.meters there  cannot  be
\n2,700  flat  purchasers, as worked out on  that\t basis\teach
\npurchaser will get 66 sq.ft. approximately.\n<\/p>\n
27.  Because  of the attempt of the flat owners\t to  disrupt
\nthe auction, DDA had
\n577<\/span>
\nno  other option than to invite tenders.   Fortunately,\t the
\nsecond\ttender offered is made by M\/s  Banganga\t Investments
\nPvt.Ltd.  for Rs.70 crores and 10 lacs.\t That is in  keeping
\nwith  the market rate.\tHence, it is prayed that  the  offer
\nmay  be accepted and Skipper may be debt with for  abuse  of
\nprocess of court.\n<\/p>\n
28.  The learned counsel for the Skipper made an attempt  to
\njustify the filing of the second suit but later gave up that
\nargument.  By then Mr. G. Ramaswamy, learned senior  counsel
\ncame  and put forth a plea that as a last chance if  Skipper
\nis granted time it will pay off-the entire dues.\n<\/p>\n
29.  We passed the operative order on 3.1.95 stating\tthat
\nthe reasons will be furnished later.\n<\/p>\n
30.  The reasons for the said operative order\t  are
\nfurnished below:\n<\/p>\n
From  the above narration it is clear that the\tSkipper\t has
\ntime and again indulged in abuse of process of court.\tCal-
\nculated\t attempts  have\t been made to  circumvent  even\t the
\norders of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
31.  This  Court by its order dated  29.1.1991\tspecifically
\ndirected the Skipper in no uncertain terms to make the\tpay-
\nment of Rs. 5 crores with a specified time.  There was\talso
\na  further restrain on Skipper from creating any  rights  in
\nthe  property.\tIt is most surprising that inspite  of\tthis
\nspecific order, the Skipper would issue an advertisement  on
\n4.2.1991 to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  SKIPPER
\n\t\t     GROUP OF COMPANIES
\n\t\t       [ANNOUNCES]
\n\t  ISSUE of Commercial Flats for retired\/
\n\t    Retiring Personal\/Professionals\/Self
\n\t     employed & other persons in our
\n\t       BAU MAKAHAN  SINGH HOUSE
\n\t\tJHANDEWALAN TOWER,
\n\t\t JHANDEWALAN EXTN.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    at highly concessional rates
\nit  is\tonce in a lifetime opportunity to own  a  commercial
\nproperty of your own in Bau Makhan Singh House”
\nA prime project in the middle of high business\tenvironment.
\nThe location of tower is as rare as the offer itself
\n[SALIENT FEATURES]
\n*   Ultra modem multi storeyed commercial complex  (Shopping
\ncum office complex)
\n*   Ground  to\t3rd Floor  centrally  air  conditioned\twith
\nescalators.\n<\/p>\n
*  Excellent quality of construction.\n<\/p>\n
*  Interest free payment schedule linked with construction.
\n*  Excellent investment returns.).\n<\/p>\n
32.  Special  Leave  Petition  (Civil) No. 186\tof  1991  as
\ndismissed by this Court on 25.1.1993. Therefore, the  matter
\nshould\thave  normally rested at this stage.  But,  yet\t the
\nSkipper would file Suit No. 770 of 1993 for various  reliefs
\nfor which CWP No.2371 of 1989 was preferred before the Delhi
\nHigh  Court  which  writ petition came to  be  dismissed  on
\n21.12.1990 by an operative order giving detailed reasons  on
\n14.1.1990\n<\/p>\n
33.  Then  again,  Writ Petition before the  Allahabad\tHigh
\nCourt and one more suit before the City Civil (Munsif) Court
\nat
\n578<\/span>
\nGhaziabad  were filed.\tThese were nothing but\tattempts  to
\nset at naught the orders of this Court.\t No doubt, the\twrit
\npetition before the Allahabad High Court and the suit before
\nthe  City  Civil (Munsif) Court at Ghaziabad  may  be  third
\nparties, yet the complicity of Skipper cannot be ruled\tout.
\nThe Skipper issued an advertisement to the following  effect
\non  26.5.1992  inviting\t offers\t for  confirmed\t booking  of
\ncommercial flats within a stone throw of Connaught Place  in
\nrelation to the property conforming with the subject  matter
\nin this case:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “SKIPPER GROUP
\n\t\tOFFERS CONFIRMED BOOKING OF
\n\t\t\t COMMERCIAL
\n\t\tFLATS WITHIN A STONES THROW
\n\t\t     OF CONNAUGHT PLACE
\nSale of Commercial Flats
\nBAU MAKHAN SINGH HOUSE, DEWALAN TOWER,
\nJHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,
\nAt highly concessional rates\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
——————————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  offers  is only for confirmed bookings, on  first\t cum
\nfirst served basis.\n<\/p>\n
TOTAL COST OF FLAT: Rs. 1,00,000
\nBOOKING AMOUNT: Rs. 50,000\/
\nBalance in easy construction & time linked instalments.
\nONLY 50 FLAT AVAILABLE\n<\/p>\n
——————————–\n<\/p>\n
34.  The  creation  of\trights in favour  in  third  parties
\nduring\tthe  pendency of the proceeding is  nothing  but  an
\nattempt\t to  over-reach\t or circumvent the  orders  of\tthis
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
35.  On\t a  persual of the records, it is  also\t clear\tthat
\nthere  are  several individuals who have  entered  into\t the
\nagreement   to\tpurchase  the  premises\t before\t and   after
\n29.1.1991.  It\tis  most  unfortunate  that  guiltless\t and
\ninnocent   purchasers  have  been  brought  to\tthis   sorry
\nsituation  by  this crafty builder.  This  could  have\tbeen
\navoided, had the D.D.A not handed over the possession of the
\nsuit  land  to Skipper even before receiving the  amount  in
\nfull in accordance with the agreement or at least in  accor-
\ndance with the orders of this Court.  Truly, it has  obliged
\nthe Skipper to further the evil designs of the Skipper.\n<\/p>\n
36.  The order dated 4.10.1988 passed by then Ex-Chairman of
\nthe  D.D.A  (the then Lt.  Governor of Delhi)  runs  to\t the
\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t “No.  F.4 (1) 80\/Impl.\n<\/p>\n
\t From: Director (C.L.)
\n\t\t   DELHI DEVELOPMENT
\n\t\t   AUTHORITY
\n\t\t   New Delhi 4\/10\/1988
\n\t M\/s.  Skipper Constn.\tCo. (P) Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
\t 23,Barakhanaba Road,
\n\t New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
\t Sub:  Request\tfor deferment of IInd instalment  in
\n\t respect   of  Jhandewalan  Tower   Plot,   Block-B,
\n\t Jhandewalan, N.Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
\t Sir,
\n\t      Please  refer to your request on\tthe  subject
\n\t\t  noted\t above.\t  It is to inform you that  L.G.  has
\n\t been  pleased\tto  consider your  request  for\t the
\n\t deferment  of\tIInd  instalment which\twas  due  on
\n\t 15.3.1988  for one month from the date of  approval
\n\t of  the  building  plans  subject  to\tpayment\t  of
\n\t interest  changes 18% per annum.  It may,  however,
\n\t please be noted that the offer will be withdrawn if
\n\t any delay\/non
\n\t 579<\/span>
\n\t co-operation\tfor  getting  the   building   plans
\n\t finalised is noticed from your side.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    Yours faithfully,
\n\t\t\t\t    Sd\/
\n\t\t\t  DIRECTOR (C.L.).”\n<\/p>\n
37.  It\t caused\t dismay to as to how the orders came  to  be
\npassed\tby exercise of powers under Section 41 of the  Delhi
\nDevelopment  Authority\tAct.  Where was the  need  to  defer
\nrecovery  of the second instalment from Skipper when it\t was
\nadmittedly in default ? When the matter has hardly contested
\nbefore the Court, the D.D.A. adopted a passive attitude\t and
\nremained a bystander or an on-looker.  If only it had  taken
\nproper\tsteps  at  the appropriate time, the  money  of\t the
\nunwary purchasers would not have fallen into the trap of the
\nSkipper.  Therefore, the conduct of the officials of  D.D.A.
\nincluding   its\t ex-Chairman  prima  facie  appears  to\t  be
\nquestionable  This can be established only by a\t probe\tinto
\nthe conduct of the affairs of the D.D.A.\n<\/p>\n
38.  Turning  to the role placed by then New Bank  of  India
\nwhich has now merged in Punjab National Bank, prima facie it
\nappears to us that they have been ‘far too so generous’ with
\npublic\tmoney.\tThe Bank has to establish that it has  acted
\nas a prudent banker.  The liberality in advancement of loans
\nand  bank  guarantees creates an impression that  ‘there  is
\nsomething rotten’.  How, bank guarantee came to be furnished
\nfor the huge sum of the first instalment of Rs. 1,944 crores
\nis  enigmatic.\tAgain, in September, 1989 how a\t fresh\tbank
\nguarantee was advanced is equally enigmatic.  Since, we have
\ndirected  an enquiry into this, all that we are\t constrained
\nto observe is that caution and care in advancement of loans-
\nbank  guarantee to Skipper Construction appear to have\tbeen
\nthrown to winds.\n<\/p>\n
581<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, Supl. (2) 160 JT 1995 (1) 571 Author: P Sawant Bench: Sawant, P.B. PETITIONER: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RESPONDENT: SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1995 BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. MOHAN, S. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-263285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-08T00:57:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T00:57:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995\"},\"wordCount\":3202,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995\",\"name\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T00:57:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-08T00:57:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995","datePublished":"1995-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T00:57:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995"},"wordCount":3202,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995","name":"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T00:57:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-skipper-construction-and-anr-on-25-january-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction And Anr on 25 January, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=263285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}