- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Maradu flats case: Supreme Court Directs one of the builders to Deposit Rs 12.26 crore within 4 Months
Maradu flats case: Supreme Court Directs one of the builders to Deposit Rs 12.26 crore within 4 Months The Supreme Court of India (SC) in the case titled the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority Member Secretary [Petitioner(s)] v. Maradu Municipality & Ors. [Respondent(s)] directed one of the four builders – Jain Housing Ltd. – to deposit a portion of the compensation...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Maradu flats case: Supreme Court Directs one of the builders to Deposit Rs 12.26 crore within 4 Months
The Supreme Court of India (SC) in the case titled the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority Member Secretary [Petitioner(s)] v. Maradu Municipality & Ors. [Respondent(s)] directed one of the four builders – Jain Housing Ltd. – to deposit a portion of the compensation amount due to owners (Rs 12.26 crores) in two equal installments within four months.
The bench of Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari noted that the Justice K. Balakrishnan Committee has calculated a sum of Rs.28.53 crore towards the share of M/S Jain Housing.
The Top Court recorded that only Rs. 2 crore has been deposited so far. It noted that the properties of Jain Housing have all been attached after Court's orders. The builder made an offer regarding two of its properties stated that if allowed to dispose of then it would be in a position to meet all its liabilities.
The necessary valuation of the properties has been submitted to the Committee. The Committee has assessed the value of the same as 85.25 crore, while the valuation of 93.27 crore by Jain Housing.
It was submitted before the bench that the particular property is sufficient to meet the liabilities and a prayer was made before the Court to release the rest of the properties from attachment.
Senior advocate Dr AM Singhvi representing Jain Housing submitted before the SC that the aforesaid lands are no more the subject of mortgage and it stands relieved.
He further stated that the builders are also willing to furnish before the Apex Court an undertaking on affidavit that the property stands released from the mortgage.
Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal advanced that at this stage, Jain Housing is required to make a further deposit of Rs.12.26 crores, subject to which the Court may consider its request.
On request of the senior advocate, the SC bench granted two months to Jain Housing for the deposit of the first installment of Rs. 6.12 crores. The entire deposit of 12.26 crores is required to be made within 4 months.
Golden Kayaloram Case
The Bench noted regarding M/S Vichus Constructions (Golden Kayaloram Case), that the builder was required to deposit Rs. 13.37 crore initially. It was observed by the Court that Rs. 2.98 crore been deposited so far.
Senior advocate Mr Kapil Sibal representing Vichus Constructions made submissions before the Court that the builder is willing to submit Rs 3.86 crore if it is permitted to dispose of one property for which it has entered into an agreement to sell.
The Apex Court considered the submissions of the senior advocate and ordered, "We permit Mr. Sibal's client to do so and lift the freeze on the bank accounts of M/s.Vichus Constructions only for the limited purpose to facilitate receipt of the deposit within six months. In case of any issues, liberty is granted to mention."
The SC posted the matter for further hearing on 10 March 2021.