Case: Nishan Developers &amp; Properties Limited Vs. Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments

1. On August 4, 1988, this Court on the application made by Nishan Developers Properties Private Limited (hereinafter Nishan for short) and Sanchaita Commissioner and upon hearing Mr. Gobinda Mukhoty for the small depositors made the following orderHeard learned counsel for the petitioner/proposed purchaser. Mr. Gobinda Mukhoty is for the small depositors and Mr. H. K. Puri appears for the Commissioner. We have also perused the terms contained in Schedule A which are the terms of the settlement. We are of the view that the arrangement is the interest of the depositors and would benefit his State. Accordingly the proposal is accepted and the Commissioner is permitted to sell the property strictly in accordance with the terms contained in Schedule A. We are old that an amount of Rs. 2, 62, 500 is paid and the balance of Rs. 7, 87, 500 is undertaken to be paid within six months from the date of settlement. On failure of payment as stipulated the arrangement shall be withdrawn and the money already deposited shall stand forfeited

Reasoning:
4. After Special Leave Petition No. 4372 of 1982 was dismissed possibly the petition for compromise could even have been moved before the nominated Bench itself. When the application registered in CMP No. 22210 of 1988 was placed before this Court, we were not aware of the fact that an offer of Rs. 20 lakhs for the property in question had already been made to the Commissioner; nor were we told that there had beendirections of the nominated bench that the property could be sold by public auction. We accepted the representation contained in paragraph 8 of Schedule A of the compromise petition to the following effectIt is ordered and declared by the Honble Special Division Bench of the Calcutta high Court that appellant company is the absolute owner is the properties in question situated and laying at Mouza Mondalgathi, J. L. No. 6 R. S. Dag Nos. 247, 478, 470 480 248 471, acre of land on V. I. P. Road Police Station, Rajarhat in the District oftry Office, BidhannagarWhen the order is now placed, we do not find any categorical declaration as was mentioned in theIn the background of what has transpired now, we think it would not be appropriate to entertain the application for sanction the compromise directly in this Court. It is in the fitness of things that the application for acceptance of the settlement should be considered by the nominated Bench of the Calcutta High Court and it should dispose of the same after hearing parties in the backdrop of facts and in accordance with law. There has been no dispute before us nor can there by any that all such steps as are necessary should be taken to protect the interests of the depositors and give effect to the scheme evolved by this