Whether society is estopped from challenging bid amount after acceptance of bid?

For the reasons given above, we have no hesitation to
reject the aforesaid contention. It is re-emphasized that when the
decision was taken to go through the open auction process which
was even otherwise justifiable in order to augment the State
revenue, the appellant-society cannot object to the same and claim

the settlement of ghat in its favour on payment of 15% of the
reserved Jama/settlement amount for the previous years. In fact,
such a contention is not even available to the appellant-society
inasmuch as the decision of the respondents to go through the
auction process was never questioned or challenged by the
appellant-society in any judicial proceedings. On the contrary, it
jumped to the offer of the respondents and accepted the bid but, at
the same time, put the uncalled for condition that it was accepting
the same under protest. Therefore, it cannot now turn around and
make out a case that the bid amount should have been 15% of the
reserved Jama/settlement for the previous years.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1853 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8448 of 2012)
ALAULI ANCHAL BOAT TRAFFIC COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD., PHULTORA AND ANR. ....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ….Respondents
Citation:(2016)6 SCC296
R. BANUMATHI, J.

Print Page

Whether court should decide in case of prevention of corruption Act case at initial stage that accused is not public servant?

As we notice, the High Court has really been swayed by the concept of Article 12 of the Constitution, the provisions contained in the 1949 Act and in a mercurial manner taking note of the fact that the multi-state society is not controlled or aided by the Government has arrived at the conclusion. In our considered opinion, even any grant or any aid at the time of establishment of the society or in any construction or in any structural concept or any aspect would be an aid. We are inclined to think so as the term 'aid' has not been defined. A sprinkle of aid to the society will also bring an employee within the definition of 'public servant'. The concept in entirety has to be understood in the backdrop of corruption. In Shri Ram Singh (supra), this Court had to say this:

Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence--shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.

 We share the said perception, and reiterate with agony. The ingemination has to be realized with sanctity. Therefore, we are of the convinced opinion that it was entirely unnecessary on the part of the High Court to enter into elaborate deliberation to arrive at the conclusion that the Respondent was not a public servant. Regard being had to the facts of the case, we think it would be apposite that it is left to be dealt with in the course of trial whether the society concerned has ever been granted any kind of aid or not.

Citation: AIR2016SC1377, 2016ALLMR(Cri)1351,(2016)4 SCC417,2016 CRLJ2031

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1329 of 2009

Decided On: 15.12.2015

Appellants: State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Brijlal Sadasukh Modani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Dipak Misra and A.K. Goel, JJ.

Print Page

Whether third party having agreement with developer can claim specific performance of contract from society?

The clauses quoted above, read together and in their proper perspective to
be gathered from the whole agreement, clearly envisage the development and
sale of the free sale component of the project by Vaidehi on their own account
and as an independent contracting party, and not as agents of the Society. The
contract between Vaidehi and the Society is on a principal to principal basis; it
neither constitutes a partnership nor a joint venture or agency between the two.
The third party purchasers with whom Vaidehi might enter into agreements for
sale would have no privity of contract with the Society and the Society would in
no way be responsible for any claim made by such purchasers against Vaidehi
under their respective agreements for sale.
16.6 There being no privity of contract between the Society and the third party
purchasers claiming under Vaidehi, the third party purchasers cannot claim
specific performance of their respective agreements for sale except through
Vaidehi. They stand or fall by Vaidehi. If the rights of Vaidehi are brought to an
end upon a lawful termination of the Society Development Agreement, the third
party purchasers cannot lay any independent claim against the Society or anyone
claiming through the Society. The agreements with third party purchasers are
premised upon a valid, subsisting and enforceable agreement between their
vendors, namely, Vaidehi and the owners, namely, the Society and in fact refer to
the Society Development Agreement in this behalf. Admittedly, therefore, the third
party purchasers had, or at any rate, ought to have, notice of the Society
Development Agreement and its terms and conditions, and Vaidehi's obligations
to perform the same. If Vaidehi fails to perform these obligations, the purchasers
cannot but suffer the consequences. In other words, the purchaser's rights are
subject to Vaidehi's rights and not higher than those. Therefore, from a
contractual standpoint, the third party purchasers have no case against the

Society or Rustomjee, who claim through the Society.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 961 OF 2013
IN
SUIT NO. 262 OF 2012

Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. New D.N. Nagar Co-op.Housing Society Union Ltd. & Ors.
                                                                                                                           
 CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
 PRONOUNCED ON : 01 DECEMBER 2014
Citation: AIR 2015(NOC)722 Bom

Print Page

Whether compensation under land acquisition Act can be paid to Society or other intermeddler, or power of attorney holder of claimant?

In order to protect the interest of the Scheduled Caste persons,
we further direct that the Society or other intermeddler, or power of

attorney holder shall not be paid compensation on their behalf and the
Collector/Land Acquisition Officer to ensure that the compensation is
disbursed directly to the Khatedars or their legal representatives, as
the case may be, and that they are not deprived of the same by any
unscrupulous devices of land grabbers etc. Let the compensation be
disbursed within a period of three months from today along with other
permissible statutory benefits.
The Apex Court has observed that the right to claim compensation is based on right, title or interest in the land and same cannot be transferred to a juristic person like the Society. It is the duty of the State to ensure that the benefit reaches to such persons directly and not usurped by intermeddlers as what is intended by the protection of the right to hold property of SC/ST, cannot be taken away by disbursing the compensation to Society. Persons of SC/ST, as the case may be, are the only rightful claimants to disbursal of compensation and such right cannot be tinkered with by void transaction as the purpose of compensation is the re-settlement of Scheduled Castes or tribes.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1527-1536 OF 2013
Rajasthan Housing Board
... Appellant
- Vs –
New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
& Anr.
... Respondents
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos.1557-1566/2013, 1577-1586/2013, 1597-1606/2013,
Dated;May 1, 2015.
Citation;(2015) 7 SCC601,AIR 2015 SC 2126

Print Page