Supreme Court Rejects Modification Plea in Supertech Demolition Case: Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 4 October 2021
Citation: Miscellaneous Application No 1572 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No 5041 of 2021
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and B V Nagarathna, J.

Can a developer circumvent a Supreme Court order for demolition by proposing a partial demolition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Supertech Emerald Court project. The court was asked to modify its previous order directing the complete demolition of two illegally constructed towers. This judgment emphasizes the importance of upholding judicial orders and not allowing developers to bypass them through clever strategies.

Case Background

The case involves Supertech Limited, the developer of the Emerald Court project in Noida, and the Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association. The dispute arose due to the illegal construction of two towers, T-16 and T-17, which violated building regulations and the rights of existing flat owners. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had ordered the demolition of these towers, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 31 August 2021.

Supertech Limited then filed a miscellaneous application seeking a modification of the Supreme Court’s order. Instead of demolishing both towers, they proposed to demolish only a portion of Tower T-17, while retaining Tower T-16. They argued that this would address the issues of minimum distance requirements and the lack of green space, which were the primary reasons for the demolition order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had directed the demolition of Towers 16 and 17, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Supertech Limited filed a miscellaneous application seeking to modify the demolition order, proposing a partial demolition of Tower 17 instead. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this application, emphasizing that such modifications cannot be sought through miscellaneous applications and that the original judgment must be upheld.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the Uttar Pradesh Apartments Act, 2010 (the “2010 Act”), specifically Section 4, which mandates that a promoter cannot make alterations to the plans without the prior consent of the intending purchaser. The Court also highlighted that the construction of Towers 16 and 17 reduced the undivided interest of existing flat owners in the common areas, violating their rights.

The Court also cited the principle that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all, and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This principle was used to emphasize that the demolition order, being a specific direction, could not be circumvented by a modification application.

The Court also referred to the following provisions:

• Section 4(4) of the UP Apartments Act 2010: “After plans, specifications and other particulars specified in this section as sanctioned by the prescribed sanctioning authority are disclosed to the intending purchaser and a written agreement of sale is entered into and registered with the office of concerned registering authorities. The promoter may make such minor additions or alterations as may be required by the owner or owners, or such minor changes or alterations as may be necessary due to architectural and structural reason’s duly recommended and verified by authorized Architect or Engineer after proper declaration and intimation to the owner: Provided that the promoter shall not make any alterations in the plans, specifications and other particulars without the previous consent of the intending purchaser, project Architect, project Engineer and obtaining the required permission of the prescribed sanctioning authority, and in no case he shall make such alterations as an not permissible in the building bye-laws.”
• Section 4(1)(c) of the UP Apartments Act 2010: Requires a promoter to disclose the approved plans and specifications to an intending purchaser.
• Section 4(1)(d) of the UP Apartments Act 2010: Requires disclosure of common areas and facilities as per the approved plan.

Arguments

Applicant (Supertech Limited):

• The applicant argued that they were not seeking a review of the judgment, but a modification to meet the concerns raised by the Court.
• They proposed to demolish a portion of Tower T-17 while retaining Tower T-16, which they claimed would address the issues of minimum distance requirements and the lack of green space.
• They contended that the core issues were the violation of minimum distance and green area requirements.

Respondent (Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association):

• The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the miscellaneous application, stating that it was essentially an attempt to review the judgment.
• They argued that the Court had noted multiple violations, including non-compliance with the UP Apartments Act 2010, and the reduction of the undivided interest of flat purchasers in common areas without their consent.
• They contended that the proposed modification would not rectify all the violations identified by the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the miscellaneous application seeking a modification of the demolition order was maintainable.

The sub-issue was whether the proposed partial demolition of Tower T-17 would address all the violations identified in the original judgment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following cases were relied upon by the Court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban and Others [2000] 7 SCC 296* to emphasize that applications for “clarification” or “modification” cannot be used to bypass review procedures.
• The Court cited Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi and Others [2004] 12 SCC 713* to reiterate that applications disguised as “clarification” or “modification” are essentially review petitions and should be rejected.
• The Court referred to Rashid Khan Pathan (Applicant) – In Re: Vijay Kurle and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 711* to emphasize the importance of finality of judgments and that repeated interlocutory applications are an abuse of the process.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the finality and stability of judicial pronouncements. The Court was also concerned that the applicant was attempting to bypass the review process by filing a miscellaneous application instead of a review petition. The Court emphasized that judicial orders must be complied with and that parties cannot be allowed to circumvent them through clever strategies.

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the proposed modification because it was deemed an attempt to circumvent the review process and because the partial demolition would not address all the violations identified in the original judgment. The Court emphasized that judicial orders must be complied with and that parties cannot be allowed to circumvent them through clever strategies.

The Court stated, “The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather.”

The Court also noted, “A disturbing trend has emerged in this court of repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications, being filed after a final judgment has been pronounced. Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged.”

The Court further observed, “Filing of a miscellaneous application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law. Further, it is a settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly.”

Key Takeaways

• Judicial orders must be complied with and cannot be circumvented through miscellaneous applications.
• Applications for modification or clarification cannot be used to bypass the review process.
• Finality and stability of judicial pronouncements are of paramount importance.
• Developers cannot reduce the undivided interest of flat owners in common areas without their consent.
• When a statute requires a specific action to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the miscellaneous application, thereby upholding its original order for the complete demolition of Towers 16 and 17.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a miscellaneous application cannot be used to seek modification of a final judgment, especially when it is an attempt to bypass the review process. This case reinforces the principle that judicial orders must be complied with and that parties cannot circumvent them through clever strategies. The case does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the settled legal position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of upholding judicial orders and not allowing parties to circumvent them through miscellaneous applications. The Court emphasized the need for finality in judicial pronouncements and reiterated that when a specific action is required, it must be done in that manner only. This decision serves as a reminder that judicial orders must be respected and complied with, and that attempts to bypass the review process will not be entertained.