The Supreme Court, on August 30, 2017, asked thespian actor Dilip Kumar to deposit Rs 20 crores with its registry, as part payment to a Mumbai-based real estate firm, with whom the agreement to develop his prime Pali Hill property ran into rough weather a decade ago. The actor had entered into an agreement with Prajita Developers Pvt Ltd for developing his property, measuring 2,412 sq yards. The dispute arose later, as no construction was raised and the veteran actor wanted back the plot whose possession was with the firm.
A bench headed by justice J Chelameswar asked the Bollywood actor to deposit the amount in the form of a demand draft within four weeks and inform the firm. “Upon the receipt of such intimation, Prajita shall withdraw all the security personnel deployed by it and hand over possession of the property in question, within a period of seven days from the date of the receipt of the above-mentioned intimation to the appellant in the presence of the commissioner of police, Mumbai, or any other senior police officer subordinate to the commissioner of police, Mumbai to be nominated by the commissioner of police. The commissioner of police or his nominee, shall draw a panchnama of the fact of the handing over of the property by Prajita to the appellant and file the same in the registry of this court, within a week from the date of the handing over of the possession. Upon the filing of the panchnama, Prajita shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs 20 crores, deposited by the appellant pursuant to this order,” the bench, also comprising justice S Abdul Nazeer, said.
See also: SC favours arbitrator on dispute between actor Dilip Kumar, developer
To deal with the further claim of the firm that the actor owed it more, the top court appointed former SC judge, justice P Venkatarama Reddy, as the arbitrator to decide whether Prajita was entitled for more, as damages apart from Rs 20 crores. “The background of the facts and circumstances of the case, whether Prajita would be entitled for any damages apart from receiving the above-mentioned amount of Rs 20 crores from the appellant, is a matter which requires some examination. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to refer the said question for resolution by arbitration between the appellant and Prajita,” the bench said.
In March 2016, the apex court had granted relief to Dilip Kumar, by rejecting a plea to restrain him from creating third party rights over the Pali Hill property, till the arbitration of the dispute with a private developer. The apex court had, however, said that there was an impending arbitration and the arbitrators will proceed to decide the dispute, as and when the arbitration proceedings take place, uninfluenced by any observation.
According to the original agreement, the owner, as well as the developers, had to share 50 per cent each of the residential flats to be built on the land. Prajita Developers had, thus, obtained the leasehold rights in the property together with the bungalow standing thereon, by virtue of a lease of September 25, 1953. However, the developers had failed to raise any construction. The Bombay High Court had in 2016, rejected the plea of the realty firm.
Press Trust of India (PTI), headquartered in New Delhi, is India’s largest news agency. It was registered in 1947 and started operations in 1949. PTI has more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers, who generate more than 2,000 stories and 200 photographs every day. Subscribers to PTI’s feed include the mainstream media, research groups, specialised presses, companies, government organisations and NGOs.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PressTrustofIndia
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PTI_News
Email: [email protected]
Related Posts
SC favours arbitrator on dispute between actor Dilip Kumar, developer.
Dilip Kumar, Saira Banu, win back possession of disputed property.
SC defreezes three bank accounts of Mumbai’s Adarsh Society.
SC seeks CBI, Maharashtra’s response, on defreezing of Adarsh Society accounts.
SC pulls up Maharashtra SRA for not registering construction workers.
Can’t feed birds from flat’s balcony and create nuisance for others, says SC.
