✦ Supreme Court of India

SUPERTECH LIMITED v. EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

The above applications are disposed of as infructuous

Judgment

(i) The order passed by the High Court for the demolition of Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T-17) does not warrant interference and the direction for demolition issued by the High Court is affirmed; (ii) The work of demolition shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of this judgment; (iii) The work of demolition shall be carried out by the appellant at its own cost under the supervision of the officials of NOIDA. In order to ensure that the work of demolition is carried out in a safe manner without affecting the existing pleadings, NOIDA shall consult its own experts and experts from Central Building Research Institute Roorkee; (iv) The work of demolition shall be carried out under the overall supervision of CBRI. In the event that CBRI expresses its inability to do so, another expert agency shall be nominated by NOIDA; (v) The cost of demolition and all incidental expenses including the fees payable to the experts shall be borne by the appellant; (vi) The appellant shall within a period of two months refund to all existing flat purchasers in Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T - 17), other than those to whom refunds have already been made, all the amounts invested for the allotted flats together with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable with effect from the date of the respective deposits until the date of refund in terms of Part H of this judgment; and (vii) The appellant shall pay to the RWA costs quantified at Rs 2 crore, to be paid in one month from the receipt of this judgment. [Para 157][1086-C-H; 1087-A-B]

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The above applications are disposed of as infructuous

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

UP Apartment Act, 2010; UP Apartments Act, 2010 — ss. 4(4), 5; UPIAD Act, 1976 — ss. 12, 27; Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 — s. 12; Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Act, 1973 — s. 49; Uttar Pradesh Ownership of Flats Act, 1975.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2021). ← Search more judgments