2013 (7) TMI 1133 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1.
2. Validity of the unilateral conveyance deed.
3. Service of notice for the changed date of hearing.
4. Violation of the rule of audi alteram partem.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1:
The appellants contended that the relief of specific performance of the agreement could only be obtained from a Civil Court, and Respondent No. 1 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by Respondent No. 3. They argued that Respondent No. 3 lacked the locus to file the application because the agreement dated 16.10.1979 had already been terminated.

Validity of the Unilateral Conveyance Deed:
Respondent No. 1, exercising powers u/s 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, certified that Respondent No. 3 was entitled to a unilateral conveyance deed. The appellants challenged this order, arguing that the conveyance deed executed and registered on 14.06.2012 was improper and bad in law as no notice under the Registration Act was given to them.

Service of Notice for the Changed Date of Hearing:
The appellants argued that Respondent No. 1 unilaterally changed the date of hearing and decided the matter without ensuring service of notice about the changed date. The appellants claimed they were not informed about the preponement of the hearing date from 19.06.2012 to 21.05.2012, which prejudiced their case. Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 failed to provide convincing evidence that the notice was delivered to the appellants before the hearing date.

Violation of the Rule of Audi Alteram Partem:
The Supreme Court found that the justification for preponing the hearing date was weak and the notice was not delivered to the appellants. This led to a violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, as the appellants were not given a fair opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the order dated 12.06.2012 passed by Respondent No. 1 was set aside.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order as well as the order dated 12.06.2012 passed by Respondent No. 1 were set aside. The matter was remitted to Respondent No. 1 for fresh disposal of the application filed by Respondent No. 3 for the grant of a certificate for unilateral execution of conveyance. Respondent No. 1 was directed to decide the application within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment, without being influenced by the previous order dated 12.06.2012.