On Wednesday, the Supreme Court asked veteran actor Dilip Kumar to deposit Rs 20 Cr to a Mumbai based real estate firm. It was found that in the year 2006, the actor had an agreement with a real state company to develop the property but no such construction took place. Supreme Court has restored the possession to actor Dilip Kumar.
As per the information, Mr. Dilip Kumar had entered into the agreement with Prajita Developers Pvt Ltd for developing his property which measures 2412 sq. yards.
The dispute arose later when no such construction took place and the actor wanted back the plot whose possession was with the firm.
A bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar asked the actor to deposit the amount in the form of DD that is, Demand Draft that too, within 4 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 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 crore deposited by the appellant pursuant to this order,” the bench, also comprising Justice S Abdul Nazeer, mentioned.
Further, to deal with the claim of the firm that Mr. Dilip owed it more, the supreme court appointed former SC judge Justice P Venkatarama Reddy as an arbitrator to find whether Prajita is entitled for more damages apart from Rs 20 Cr.
The bench also mentioned, “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 crore 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 apex court had allowed relief to the actor by dismissing a plea to restrain him from making 3rd party rights over the Pali hill property till the arbitration of the dispute with private developer.
The apex court had however mentioned that, there was an impending arbitration and further the arbitrators will move on to decide the dispute when the arbitration proceedings will take place without any influence of observation.
As per the original agreement, the developers, as well as the owner, had to share 50% of each residential flats built on the land.
Thus the developers of Prajit had obtained the leasehold rights in the property along with the bungalow present thereon by the virtue of lease of Sept 25, 1953. But the developers failed to raise any construction.
Last year, the Bombay High Court had dismissed the plea of the realty firm.