Sunday, August 3, 2014

Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd.:Civil Suits – Equities – the respondent took land on lease not from a rightful owner – constructed Hospitals therein



Civil Suits – Equities – the respondent took land on lease not from a rightful owner – constructed Hospitals therein – suitable compensation – Apex court held that the Appellants are entitled and the first Respondent Apollo Hospitals is liable to pay the following amounts: 

Compensation towards value of land Rs.24,04,188 per cottah for 11.66(11.659) cottah which comes to Rs.2,80,32,832 (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Two only).

 Interest at the rate of 2% per annum for 23 years which works out to Rs.1,28,95,102 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Eight Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand One Hundred and Two only).

 Utilization charges at the rate of Rs.21,500 per annum equal to Rs.4,94,500 (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred only). 

Costs Rs.5 lacs (Rupees Five Lakhs only). The first Respondent shall deposit the sum of Rs.4,20,00,000 with the Secretary General of this Court within four weeks from today.

 The Appellants shall make all arrangements to produce the original title deeds and specify the schedule of the land and the sketch from the competent authority of the revenue department and furnish the same within eight weeks from this date.

 On submission of such records, by the Appellants to this court, the first Respondent shall inspect those records and express its confirmation.

On such confirmation being submitted by the first Respondent within two weeks of the submission of the records by the Appellants, within two weeks thereafter the Appellants will execute a deed of conveyance of the land admeasuring about 11.66 (11.659) cottah of land in favour of first Respondent. 

All stamp duty and registration charges and other incidental expenses for the conveyance shall be borne by the first Respondent Appollo Hospitals. On such registration of the conveyance deed, the Appellants will be at liberty to seek for release of Rs.4,20,00,000 with whatever interest accrued thereon.

 The State of West Bengal shall direct its authorities to ensure that the lands involved in this appeal, namely, 11.66 (11.659) cottah is issued necessary certificate of such demarcation. The above said directions are without prejudice to the rights of the first Respondent hospital in relation to the rest of the lands which is governed by the registered lease deed dated 21.06.1991 as between the first Respondent hospital and the State of West Bengal which is stated to be for a period of 30 years with provision for option for further renewal for additional two terms of 30 years each.

 It is needless to state that the said rights of the first Respondent hospital under the registered lease deed dated 21.06.1991 would be governed by the terms and conditions contained therein in respect of the lands, namely, 34,147 – 743.21 square metre = 33,403.79 square metres.

 On deposit of the sum of Rs.4,20,00,000 with the Secretary General of this Court as per paragraph “a” of these directions, the Secretary General shall invest the same in UCO Bank initially for a period of six months. It shall be renewed periodically pending further orders to be passed by this Court. With the above directions, these appeals will stand disposed of. 

However, in order to ensure compliance of the directions by all the parties concerned, call these appeals for passing final orders in the first week of December, 2014.

 However, in the meantime, if all formalities are complied with, it is open to the parties to mention for posting the above appeals for passing final orders. = CIVIL APPEAL NOS…83-6684 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 8854-8855 of 2010) Somnath Chakraborty and Anr. … Appellants VERSUS Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41788

Civil Suits – Equities – the respondent took land on lease not from a rightful owner – constructed Hospitals therein – suitable compensation – Apex court held that  the  Appellants  are
entitled and the first Respondent Apollo Hospitals is  liable  to  pay  the
following amounts:
  • Compensation towards  value  of  land  Rs.24,04,188  per  cottah  for  11.66(11.659) cottah which comes to  Rs.2,80,32,832  (Rupees  Two  Crores  Eighty Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Two only).
  • Interest at the rate of 2% per  annum  for  23  years  which  works  out  tRs.1,28,95,102 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Eight  Lakhs  Ninety  Five  Thousand One Hundred and Two only). Utilization charges at the rate of Rs.21,500 per annum equal to  Rs.4,94,500 (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred only).
  • Costs Rs.5 lacs (Rupees Five Lakhs only).

  • The first Respondent shall  deposit  the  sum  of  Rs.4,20,00,000  with  the Secretary General of this Court within four weeks from today. 
  • The Appellants shall make all arrangements to  produce  the  original  title deeds and specify  the  schedule  of  the  land  and  the  sketch  from  the competent authority of the revenue department and furnish  the  same  within eight weeks from this date.
  • On submission of such records, by the Appellants to this  court,  the  first Respondent shall inspect those records and express its confirmation.
  • On such confirmation being submitted by  the  first  Respondent  within  two weeks of the submission of the records by the Appellants, within  two  weeks thereafter the Appellants will execute a deed  of  conveyance  of  the  land admeasuring  about  11.66  (11.659)  cottah  of  land  in  favour  of  first Respondent.
  • All stamp duty and registration charges and other  incidental  expenses  for the conveyance shall be borne by the first Respondent Appollo Hospitals.
  • On such registration of the conveyance  deed,  the  Appellants  will  be  at liberty to  seek  for  release  of  Rs.4,20,00,000  with  whatever  interest accrued thereon.
  • The State of West Bengal shall direct its authorities  to  ensure  that  the lands involved in this appeal,  namely,  11.66  (11.659)  cottah  is  issued necessary certificate of such demarcation.
  • The above said directions are without prejudice to the rights of  the  first Respondent hospital in relation to the rest of the lands which  is  governed by  the  registered  lease  deed  dated  21.06.1991  as  between  the  first Respondent hospital and the State of West Bengal which is stated to  be  for a period of 30 years with provision  for  option  for  further  renewal  for additional two terms of 30 years each.  It is needless  to  state  that  the said rights of the first Respondent  hospital  under  the  registered  lease deed dated  21.06.1991  would  be  governed  by  the  terms  and  conditions contained therein in respect of the lands, namely, 34,147  –  743.21  square metre = 33,403.79 square metres.
  • On deposit of the sum of Rs.4,20,00,000 with the Secretary General  of  this Court as per paragraph “a” of these directions, the Secretary General  shall invest the same in UCO Bank initially for a period of six months.  It  shall be renewed periodically pending further orders to be passed by this Court.
  • With the above directions, these appeals will stand  disposed  of.  However, in order  to  ensure  compliance  of  the  directions  by  all  the  parties concerned, call these appeals for passing final orders in the first week  of December, 2014. However, in the meantime, if all  formalities  are  complied with, it is open to the parties to mention for  posting  the  above  appeals for passing final orders. =
the appeals pertain to a piece of  land  which
is as on date in the possession of the first Respondent  Appollo  Gleneagles
Hospitals  Ltd.  (hereinafter  called  “Appollo   Hospitals”),   which   was
originally owned by one Narayan Chandra Dutta.
He stated to  have  sold  the
said lands to  one  Tilak  Sundari  Debi.
Her  title  was  confirmed  after
prolonged litigation in the judgment of the High  Court  of  Calcutta  dated
25.07.1986 in Second Appeal No. 384 of 1967.
When the said  litigation  was
pending, the heirs of late Tilak Sunderi Debi sold the  said  lands  to  the
present Appellants who became the joint owners of the land consisting of  11
Katha 10 chitaks and 25 square feets, in all 11.659 cottah of land. =

DIVISION BENCH

The Division Bench by the judgment  impugned  in
these appeals held as under in paragraph 12.1:
“12.1 The second appellate decree might be binding only upon the parties  to
the said proceedings.  However, it is otherwise a judgment in rem, at  least
against any person claiming title derived from the judgment debtor.   Hence,
State deriving title by way of vesting from Orient was not entitled to  deny
the right, title and interest of the respondents in question.”  (underlining
is ours)
Again in paragraph 12.2 the Division Bench observed as under:
“12.2…….The title was in dispute. Hence the doctrine of lis  pendence  would
apply. During the pendency of the second  appeal,  the  present  respondents
purchased the interest of the then owner of the said land in question  which
was yet to be adjudicated  upon.  They  stepped  into  the  shoes  of  their
predecessor in interest.  The declaration was made in their  favour  by  the
Division Bench of this Court.  Hence,  the  State  was  obliged  to  proceed
against them under the provisions of the said  Act  of  1976.   The  learned
Single Judge rightly observed as such and we are in full agreement with  His
Lordship on that score.” (underlining is ours)
Again in paragraph 12.3 the Division Bench made further observations to  the
following effect:
“12.3 It is true that the hospital was constructed by  Appollo  by  spending
huge sum. They did it at their own risk and peril as it was a lease  for  30
years which is going to expire in 2021. The  Hospital  authority  took  that
risk before proceeding further.  Hence, the contention made by Mr. Mitra  on
that score cannot be accepted.”
Further observation was made by Division Bench in paragraph 12.4 as under:
“12.4 We however, feel that although it is a private hospital it is  serving
people of the State giving medical services and it would not  be  proper  to
stop such activity at this stage. We are prompted to say so as we also  find
the respondents guilty of laches.  They did  not  approach  the  appropriate
authority  at  the  right  moment.   They  should  have   raised   objection
contemporaneously.  However, such laches cannot take  away  their  right  to
claim appropriate relief without  disturbing  the  hospital,  if  possible.”
(underlining is ours)
Ultimately the Division Bench issued the following direction  in  paragraphs
13.1 and 13.2. The same are extracted as under:
“13.1 The order of the learned Single Judge is thus modified to  the  extent
that the hospital authority need not hand over  actual  physical  possession
to the State before a final declaration, if any, is made  under  Section  10
(3) considering the return to be submitted by the respondents  in  terms  of
the liberty granted by His Lordship to them.
13.2 The hospital authority would be obliged to compensate  the  respondents
to the extent of the land, if any allowed to be retained  by  them,  by  the
competent authority under the said Act of 1976 and for the balance  part  of
the land the State would be obliged to pay compensation in  accordance  with
law.”

The above said judgment of the  Division  Bench  is  the  subject  matter  of
challenge in these appeals.  =
Apex court held that
Accordingly,  we  hold  that  the  Appellants  are
entitled and the first Respondent Appollo Hospitals is  liable  to  pay  the
following amounts:
Compensation towards  value  of  land  Rs.24,04,188  per  cottah  for  11.66
(11.659) cottah which comes to  Rs.2,80,32,832  (Rupees  Two  Crores  Eighty
Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Two only).
Interest at the rate of 2% per  annum  for  23  years  which  works  out  to
Rs.1,28,95,102 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Eight  Lakhs  Ninety  Five  Thousand
One Hundred and Two only).
Utilization charges at the rate of Rs.21,500 per annum equal to  Rs.4,94,500
(Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred only).
Costs Rs.5 lacs (Rupees Five Lakhs only).
The first Respondent shall  deposit  the  sum  of  Rs.4,20,00,000  with  the
Secretary General of this Court within four weeks from today.
The Appellants shall make all arrangements to  produce  the  original  title
deeds and specify  the  schedule  of  the  land  and  the  sketch  from  the
competent authority of the revenue department and furnish  the  same  within
eight weeks from this date.
On submission of such records, by the Appellants to this  court,  the  first
Respondent shall inspect those records and express its confirmation.
On such confirmation being submitted by  the  first  Respondent  within  two
weeks of the submission of the records by the Appellants, within  two  weeks
thereafter the Appellants will execute a deed  of  conveyance  of  the  land
admeasuring  about  11.66  (11.659)  cottah  of  land  in  favour  of  first
Respondent.
All stamp duty and registration charges and other  incidental  expenses  for
the conveyance shall be borne by the first Respondent Appollo Hospitals.
On such registration of the conveyance  deed,  the  Appellants  will  be  at
liberty to  seek  for  release  of  Rs.4,20,00,000  with  whatever  interest
accrued thereon.
The State of West Bengal shall direct its authorities  to  ensure  that  the
lands involved in this appeal,  namely,  11.66  (11.659)  cottah  is  issued
necessary certificate of such demarcation.
The above said directions are without prejudice to the rights of  the  first
Respondent hospital in relation to the rest of the lands which  is  governed
by  the  registered  lease  deed  dated  21.06.1991  as  between  the  first
Respondent hospital and the State of West Bengal which is stated to  be  for
a period of 30 years with provision  for  option  for  further  renewal  for
additional two terms of 30 years each.  It is needless  to  state  that  the
said rights of the first Respondent  hospital  under  the  registered  lease
deed dated  21.06.1991  would  be  governed  by  the  terms  and  conditions
contained therein in respect of the lands, namely, 34,147  –  743.21  square
metre = 33,403.79 square metres.
On deposit of the sum of Rs.4,20,00,000 with the Secretary General  of  this
Court as per paragraph “a” of these directions, the Secretary General  shall
invest the same in UCO Bank initially for a period of six months.  It  shall
be renewed periodically pending further orders to be passed by this Court.
With the above directions, these appeals will stand  disposed  of.  However,
in order  to  ensure  compliance  of  the  directions  by  all  the  parties
concerned, call these appeals for passing final orders in the first week  of
December, 2014. However, in the meantime, if all  formalities  are  complied
with, it is open to the parties to mention for  posting  the  above  appeals
for passing final orders.

Syndicate Bank chief held on allegations of bribery












BS 3 Aug 2014
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested S K Jain, chairman and managing director of Syndicate Bank, for allegedly accepting bribes from private companies to extend credit facilities.

On Saturday, the agency conducted raids at 20 locations across Bangalore, Bhopal, Mumbai and Delhi, after registering a case in the matter. It confiscated Rs 50 lakh, allegedly received by Jain as bribe. “So far, searches have led to recoveries of several asset papers and incriminating documents,” said a CBI spokesperson.

During the raids, the CBI also unearthed about Rs 21 lakh in cash, gold worth Rs 1.68 crore and fixed deposit receipts of Rs 63 lakh.

The CBI alleged Jain had enhanced the credit limit to certain private companies, in violation of rules and regulations. The companies concerned are believed to be embroiled in the coal block allocation scam, according to the investigative agency.

Jain’s brother-in-law, as well as a chartered accountant, have also been taken into police custody. Vipul Agarwal of Prakash Industries Delhi has also been arrested in the case. Sources said a few others, including Neeraj Singhal, vice-chairman of Bhushan Steel, were also likely to be arrested.

Efforts to contact Singhal and the Bhushan Steel chief financial officer proved futile till the time of going to press.
For the quarter ended June, reported a 7.3 per cent rise in net profit at Rs 485 crore, compared with Rs 452 crore in the corresponding period last year. The bank’s total income rose 16.8 per cent to Rs 5,523 crore from Rs 4,726 crore in the year-ago period. During the same period, provisioning fell from Rs 489 crore to Rs 468 crore. While the bank’s net interest income rose one per cent to Rs 1,351 crore, against Rs 1,338 crore in the corresponding quarter last year, net interest margin declined to 2.47 per cent from 2.83 per cent. Deposits rose 17.72 per cent to Rs 2,14,863 crore from Rs 1,82,513 crore in the first quarter of 2013-14.

WELL VERSED IN VARIOUS FACETS OF BANKING

Sudhir Kumar Jain, whom Syndicate Bank employees describe as “soft-spoken”, took charge as chairman and managing director of the bank on July 8, 2013. A commerce graduate and chartered accountant, he started his career as credit manager at in 1987, steadily rising through the ranks to become general manager, heading the bank’s accounts, treasury, retail banking, investor relations and international segments. He also served as executive director of for two years. Jain, who hails from Rajasthan, has 27 years of experience in various facets of banking and has worked across capacities and locations, including Kolkata, Ahmedabad and New Delhi.

Doctrine of estoppel. – Sec.43 of T.P.Act


Doctrine of feeding the estoppel. – Sec.43 of T.P.Act – mother is the owner – but son sold the property to the appellant – pending case first son died and his legal heirs brought on record- next the mother /plaintiff died leaving grand children as her legal heirs – The Appellant now took the shelter of Sec.43 of T.P. Act 


– Apex court held that We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that in a case where a transferor never acquired by succession, inheritance or otherwise any interest in the property during his life time then the provision of Section 43 will not come into operation as against the heirs who succeeded the stridhan property of their grandmother.we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. = CIVIL APPEAL NO.3198 OF 2007 Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee ………Appellant Versus Bannama (D) by LRs. ……..Respondents = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41792

Doctrine  of feeding the estoppel.  – Sec.43 of T.P.Act – mother is the owner – but son sold the property to the appellant – pending case first son died and his legal heirs brought on record- next the mother /plaintiff died leaving grand children as her legal heirs – The Appellant now took the shelter of Sec.43 of T.P. Act – Apex court held that We  have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that in a  case  where  a  transferor  never acquired by  succession,  inheritance  or  otherwise  any  interest  in  the property during his life time then the provision  of  Section  43  will  not come into  operation  as  against  the  heirs  who  succeeded  the  stridhan property of their grandmother.we do not find any merit in this appeal,  which is accordingly dismissed. =

“43.  Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest  in
property transferred.
Where a person fraudulently or erroneously  represents
that he is authorised to transfer certain immoveable property and  professes
to transfer such property for consideration, such  transfer  shall,  at  the
option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the  transferor  may
acquire in such property at any time during which the contract  of  transfer
subsists.
Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees  in  good
faith for  consideration  without  notice  of  the  existence  of  the  said
option.”
14.   The doctrine is based on the principle of law of estoppel.
It  simply
provides that when  a  person  by  fraudulent  or  erroneous  representation
transfers certain immovable property, claiming himself to be  the  owner  of
such property, then such transfer will subsequently operate on any  interest
which the transferor may acquire in such property during which the  contract
of transfer subsists.
This doctrine known in English law has form  part  of
Roman Dutch law, according to which where a granter has purported  to  grant
an interest in  the  land  which  he  did  not  at  the  time  possess,  but
subsequently acquires,  the  benefit  of  his  subsequent  acquisition  goes
automatically to the earlier grantee.  In other words, where a vendor  sells
without title in the property, but subsequently acquires title then a  right
accrues to the purchaser to claim interest  in  the  said  property  and  it
automatically goes in favour of the transferor.=

the appellant would not be entitled to take the benefit of the  doctrine  of
feeding the estoppel.
The finding of  facts  recorded  by  the  two  courts
based on the records that the original plaintiff was  the  owner  and  title
holder  of  the  said  property  
but  by   making   false   and   fraudulent
representation by her son that the property  belonged  to  him,  transferred
the same in favour of the appellant.   
During  the  pendency  of  the  first
appeal  before  the  district  court,  the  vendor  (son  of  the   original
plaintiff) died.
Although on the death, his children  did  not  inherit  or
succeeded any interest in the property, through their deceased  father,  but
they were impleaded as legal representatives in the appeal.
However,  during
the pendency of this appeal, the original plaintiff, namely, Bannamma  died.

After her death, the respondents being the  grand  children  inherited  and
acquired interest in the suit property.
Admittedly,  the  deceased  son  of
the original plaintiff, namely Nagi Reddy never  acquired  any  interest  in
the suit property owned  by  his  mother  during  his  life  time.
In  the
aforesaid premises, the doctrine of feeding  the  estoppel  would  not  come
into operation as against the grand  children  of  the  original  plaintiff.
Section 43 in our considered opinion applies when the transferor  having  no
interest in the  property  transfers  the  same  but  subsequently  acquires
interest in the said property, the purchaser may claim the benefit  of  such
subsequent acquisition of the property by the  transferor.
Had  it  been  a
case where the son Nagi Reddy during his life time  succeeded  or  inherited
the property but- died subsequently, then to some extent it could have  been
argued that the heirs of Nagi Reddy who inherited the property on the  death
of their father would be bound by  the  principle  of  estoppel.
We  have,
therefore, no doubt in our mind that in a  case  where  a  transferor  never
acquired by  succession,  inheritance  or  otherwise  any  interest  in  the
property during his life time then the provision  of  Section  43  will  not
come into  operation  as  against  the  heirs  who  succeeded  the  stridhan
property of their grandmother.
16.   For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal,  which
is accordingly dismissed.