2017 (9) TMI 1875 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court permits intervention, directs deposit, consumer choices emphasized, Amicus Curiae appointed.

The Supreme Court allowed interlocutory applications for intervention in the case, directing petitioners to deposit money before the Registry. Consumers ... Grant of Interim Bail - allocation of plots - HELD THAT:- Let the matter be listed on 15th September, 2017. Issues:1. Interlocutory applications for intervention2. Bail application related to pending FIR3. Deposit of money before the Registry4. Possession of flats and refund of money for consumers5. Appointment of Amicus Curiae6. Listing of the matterInterlocutory Applications for Intervention:The Supreme Court allowed the interlocutory applications for intervention in the case. The court heard the counsel for the petitioners and provided directions regarding the FIR and bail application arising from it. The petitioners were directed to deposit a specific sum of money before the Registry, which they complied with by depositing an increased amount. Some consumers were interested in taking possession of flats, while others preferred refunds. The court decided not to delve into the allocation of plots at that moment.Bail Application Related to Pending FIR:The bail application in question arose from an FIR pending before the High Court, where the prayer for interim bail had been rejected. The petitioners were directed to deposit a substantial sum of money before the Supreme Court's Registry, which they did. The court acknowledged the varying preferences of consumers regarding possession of flats or refunds without discussing the allocation of plots.Deposit of Money Before the Registry:The petitioners were required to deposit a significant amount of money before the Registry of the Supreme Court, as per the court's order. The deposited amount exceeded the initially specified sum. The court noted the consumers' differing preferences regarding possession of flats and refunds but refrained from addressing plot allocations at that time.Possession of Flats and Refund of Money for Consumers:Consumers had differing preferences, with some wanting possession of flats upon completion and others seeking refunds. The court did not engage in discussions about plot allocations but focused on the consumers' choices. The court emphasized the need for clarity in communication for consumers desiring flats, requiring them to inform the appointed Amicus Curiae through a letter supported by an affidavit.Appointment of Amicus Curiae:The court appointed Mr. Pawan Shree Agarwal as Amicus Curiae to oversee the case. The Amicus Curiae was tasked with compiling details of all projects involving the petitioners, including consumer names and deposited amounts project-wise. Additionally, the Amicus Curiae, in consultation with the petitioners' counsel, was instructed to determine the exact refund amounts required. Consumers interested in obtaining flats were directed to communicate their intentions clearly to the Amicus Curiae to avoid confusion.Listing of the Matter:The court scheduled the matter to be listed on 15th September 2017 for further proceedings. The decision to appoint an Amicus Curiae and the directions regarding consumer preferences for possession or refunds were key aspects addressed in the judgment.