Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos.1589/2007, 1075/2007 and 1036/2007 on 17 of September, 2009 is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 7 November, 2006. On 7 November, 2006, this Court inter alia directed as follows: “As directed by the order in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 dated 11.03.2005 and order dated 04.05.2006 in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 the SRA is directed to call the two developers, namely M/s. Whereas in the impugned order dated 17 September, 2009, the High Court has directed as follows: “In our opinion, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Sigtia Developers, it will be open for the parties to submit fresh development Scheme as observed by this Court in paragraph no.20 of the judgment and order dated March 11, 2005 in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004. Sigtia is entitled to Letter of Intent, then that will be the end of the matter, and the order of this Court and the order of the Supreme Court will stand complied with.
Sigtia is entitled to issuance of Letter of Intent then it will have to take up the issue whether M/s. Sigtia is entitled to issuance of Letter of Intent, the question whether the agreement in favour of M/s. Thus, in our opinion, it is necessary to reiterate the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 7 November, 2006, which clearly directed the SRA to call the two Developers and dispose of their applications for issuance of the Letter of Intent and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-of-accused-in-hebbale-property-dispute-case/
Case Title: KEYA DEVELOPERS AND CONS. PVT. LTD. Vs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRA.
Case Number: C.A. No.-008418-008420 / 2009
