Supreme Court Brings Final Closure to Super Bazar-DDA Dispute: A Lesson in Judicial Equilibrium.


27 October 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law  

The Supreme Court of India, in M.A. Nos. 1741–1742 of 2020 out of SLP (C) Nos. 8398–8399 of 2005, with Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan as presiding judges, has closed the curtains on the long-standing litigation between the Official Liquidator of Super Bazar Cooperative Stores Ltd. and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The proceedings on 27 October 2025 mark a decisive end to a nearly two-decade-old property dispute concerning several commercial shops in Janakpuri and other Delhi localities.

Senior counsel Harin P. Raval, representing the Liquidator, objected at the hearing about the vagueness in DDA's calculation of amalgamation charges on certain shop properties. The DDA, represented by senior lawyer Kailash Vasdev, requested time previously to specify these charges and to ascertain if conveyance deeds can be signed after paying certain sums already mentioned in previous proceedings.


 

 

Aware of the need to put the issue to rest once and for all, the Court exercised its discretion in equity. It did not go into the niceties of the question of amalgamation charges but opted for pragmatic resolution. The Bench instructed the Liquidator to pay a lumpsum of Rs. 1.5 crore to the DDA within six weeks. On such payment, the DDA was required to register conveyance deeds in respect of the shops involved within two weeks from the date of such payment.

The order interestingly refers to an earlier direction issued on 13 May 2022, wherein the Court had already addressed matters of structural alterations between neighboring shops. That earlier order had mentioned slight construction deviations and instructed that the application by the Official Liquidator for condonation be considered, upon which the conveyance was to be carried out with all due haste. The repetition of delay since that order clearly necessitated the current Bench to lay down tighter timelines and put the issue to rest.

The Court's pronouncement of thanks to Mr. Vasdev for his conciliatory stance highlights the judicial desire to foster settlement through negotiation rather than insist on extended technical haggling. The Bench was clear that the current ruling would not form a precedent, affirming its basis on the special factual facts of this liquidation process.

By being pragmatic rather than being procedurally rigid, the Supreme Court pragmatically illustrated how purposive intervention and judicial restraint can put an end to long-pending commercial litigations—a valuable lesson for liquidation and property cases involving public bodies.