IC July 2018 (for web)

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION Details of listed Real Estate Company's half yearly (Apr-Sep) operation for the year 2017-18

Sr. Name of Company Total Face Value Promoters Book Value Sales in Operating Operating Net Profit
No. equity in of Share in Holdings of Share Rs. Cr. Profit Profit in
Rs. Crore Margin Margin
Rs. in Rs. Rs.Cr.
Percentage

1 Arvind Smart SP 31.72 10 57 70.2 90.0 28.6 31.8 21.30

2 Ajmera Realty 35.48 10 63 123.7 251.6 99.1 39.4 60.7

3 Anant Raj Industries 59.02 2 63 138.3 429.30 120.6 28.1 60.2

4 Ansal Buildwell 7.38 10 55 134.1 51.03 10.9 21.3 -1.0

5 Ansal Housing 59.39 10 59 72.1 276.8 50.1 18.1 -5.5

6 Ansal Properties 78.70 5 49 107.8 674.1 44.5 6.6 8.7

7 Ashiana Housing 20.47 2 61 70.7 355.9 91.5 25.7 63.4

8 Alpine Housing 12.99 10 73 43.9 24.85 4.99 20.0 2.78

9 Arihant foundation Hsg 8.60 10 43 189.6 43.9 3.2 7.4 0.9

10 Brigade Enterpr. 136.07 10 47 161.4 1654.8 455.1 27.5 168.8

51 11 CHD Developers 22.72 2 70 10.6 130.6 19.2 14.7 5.2

12 Country Condo 7.76 1 53 2.1 21.97 1.35 6.1 0.61

13 D B Realty 243.26 10 62 119.5 13.8 -13.8 -99.9 1.4

14 D.S. Kulkarni 25.80 10 4.8 166.5 114.3 12.8 11.2 0.9

15 DLF Ltd. 356.81 2 75 82.4 3703 1529.3 41.3 607.0

16 Eldeco Housing & Industries 1.97 10 65 424.8 72.7 18.5 25.4 8.1

17 Ganesh Housing 48.18 10 56 149.9 177.7 112.7 63.4 38.2

18 Geecee Vent 21.73 10 68 164.6 92.2 29.2 31.7 28.0

19 Godrej Propert. 108.24 5 75 89.8 457.1 55.8 12.2 110.7

20 HB Estate Dve. 16.14 10 75 -7.4 73.4 16.7 22.7 -29.1

21 H D I L 434.00 10 36 260.8 710.8 481.2 67.7 170.8

22 Hubtown 72.74 10 72 237.6 603.5 350.6 58.1 6.5

23 Indiabulls Real 94.93 2 37 129.9 27.2 -16.5 -61.2 8.4

July 2018 24 Kolte Patil Developers 75.77 10 75 105.3 534.5 130.4 24.4 84.7

25 Lancor Holdings 8.10 2 62 36 78.5 40.4 51.5 18.6

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
26 Landmark Property 13.41 1
27 Mahindra Life. 51.32 10 65 4.5 2.5 0.4 15.0 0.5
28 Marathon Nextgen 23.00 10
29 Mercantile Vent 111.92 10 52 292.9 680.6 34.0 5.0 48.2
30 Max Height 15.61 10
31 Nirlon 90.12 10 75 306.8 193.1 56.8 29.3 88.1
32 Nitesh Estates 145.83 10
33 Oberoi Realty 339.36 10 63 21.7 4.7 4.7 99.9 1.4
34 Omaxe Ltd. 182.90 10
35 Parsvanath Developer 217.59 5 51 17.5 4.1 0.8 20.9 0.5
36 Phoenix Mills 30.62 2
37 Peninsula Land 55.84 2 72 36.6 279.00 211.2 75.7 55.5
38 Prestige Estates 375.0 10
39 Puravankara Project 118.57 5 47 26.6 74.30 14.6 -19.6 -44.7
40 Prime Property 5
41 Prozone Inti 8.49 2 72 121.0 890.6 462.2 51.9 318.80
42 Relstrunt Build 30.52 10
43 RDB Reality 14.67 10 75 102.1 1036.6 307.9 29.7 67.7
44 Redium Real 17.28 10
45 Radhe Developers 10 71 58.8 249.4 50.6 20.3 -36.1
46 Satra Properties 3.25 2
47 Sunteck Realty 25.18 2 63 158.9 375.9 251.9 67.0 159.6
48 Sobha Developers 35.67 10
49 Sunstar Realty 14.15 1 55 61.1 264.6 117.0 -44.2 -148.8
50 Swan Energy 94.85 1
51 SV Global Milk 23.62 5 70 128.5 2180.3 447.0 20.5 352.2
52 Rodium Real 24.43 10
52 53 Thakkers Develp. 11.16 10 75 83.5 976.5 303.7 31.0 100.5
54 TCI Developers 3.25 10
9.00 71 52.2 41.7 23.2 55.6 21.7
3.73
32 27.1 7.2 -1.9 -25.8 3.8

8 27.3 0.7 0.2 29.0 0.2

74 55.2 23.5 1.4 6.0 0.8

67 35.6 50.0 2.2 4.3 1.6

40 13.6 5.5 0.2 -4.2 0.3

73 6.1 100.7 19.2 19.1 1.8

66 95.9 197.2 155.8 79.0 157.5

56 265 2175.0 398.0 18.3 140.2

19 1.9 3.1 -1.0 -33.7 0.1

65 36.4 330.8 18.9 5.7 7.66

75 72.2 8.0 3.4 42.5 1.5

July 2018 67 35.6 50.0 2.2 4.3 1.6

71 81 40.3 23.9 59.3 13.7

75 180.6 1.9 -0.9 -47.8 0.6

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
55 Tirupati Sarjan 5
56 Tulive Developers 16.50 10 48 18.2 130.5 12.5 9.6 6.2
57 Tarmat 3.48 10
58 Unitech 2 75 254.7 0.1 0.1 99.9 0.2
59 Vijaya Shanti Builders 10.96 10
60 Zandu Reality 523.26 100 63 34.6 60.3 0.8 1.3 0.0

26.19 18 32.0 889.3 -193.9 -21.8 -190.9
8.06
44 48.4 78.4 18.1 23.1 4.8
4635.04
36 2330.0 5.1 -3.7 -72.6 5.2

21985.05 6389.35 29.06224912 2561.0

0.454854549

53 Comments : 60 Real Estate Companies have declared their annual results for 2016 - 17 . Out of 60 companies, 53 companies having a paid up capital of
Rs.3609.61 Crore, shown a profit of 3017.1 crore over a sale / turnover of Rs.20106.30 crore avargeing a profit of 56.02 Crores each company and 7 companie,
having a paid up capital of Rs.1025.43 Crores, have shown a loss of Rs.456.1 Crore over sale/turnover of Rs.1878.8 Crore, averaring a loss of Rs.65.17 Crore each
company. The overall result of the real estate companiesis that 60 companies, having a paid up capital of Rs.4635.04 Crore, have shown a profit of Rs. 2561
Crore on a sale / turnover of Rs. 21985.1 Crore, averaging a profit of Rs.62.68 Crores each comany. The Average Operating Profit Margin of 60 compoanies is
Rs.6389.35 Crores, averaging 29.06% each company.

Source : As per results printed in the Share Capital Market Magzine from September 2017 onwards under the Head Results of Construction Companies

(....Contd. from pg. no. 50)

compromise some self-interest for the good of the group. The basic 4. Put in place the legal and financial structures to implement the
understanding and touchstone of this commitments is the plan. Many founders try to make the business fit into the estate
realization of the consequences for family members, financially plan, when in fact, both plans should be developed
and personally. simultaneously. Even the best estate plan sometimes fail for the
succession of the business as those are unworkable and cause of
2. Realize that some family members' competitive ways must be generating strong negative feelings among family members. The
unlearned and new, more constructive ways learned. most typical pitfall is when a founder leaves equal amounts of
stock ownership to children who are working in business and those
3. Develop a plan not only for the business, but for the individuals who are not.
in it. This means developing the skills necessary to carry on
continuous planning and make "Succession" an ongoing process If the above guidelines are followed and taken care of, a family can
rather than a isolated event. A sense of direction and a vision of successfully accomplish a transition from one generation to another, a
the future are to be established. Everyone should have a clear good Succession Planning is achieved and the family finds it gratifying
understanding of the overall direction of the company or business, - emotionally and financially.
and their value as individuals in it. The planning process provides
July 2018 a vehicle for making decisions, and minimizes their emotional and
personal aspects.

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION Details of Listed Civil Construction Company's half yearly (Apr - Sep 17) Operations for the year 2017-18

Sr. Name of Company Total Face Value Promoters Book Value Sales in Operating Operating Net Profit
No. equity in of Share in Holdings of Share Rs. Cr. Profit Profit in
Rs. Crore Margin Margin
1 Ahluwalia Construction Rs. in Rs. Rs.Cr.
2 Arih. Found. Hsg. Rs. in Cr. Percentage 86.0
3 ARSS Infra 13.40 2 58 75.8 1426.5 172.6 12.1 0.9
4 Arihant Super 8.60 10 3.25 7.4
5 Ashoka Buildcon 22.74 10 43 189.0 43.90 -233.9 -27.5 -327.7
6 Artson Engg. 41.16 10 46.1 35.8 26.6
7 Atlanta 93.57 5 47 19.5 850.4 259.7 12.7 182
8 AGI Infra 3.69 1 4.4 4.4 27.2
9 Akash Infraproject 16.30 2 74 28.8 128.9 135.8 60.5 82.4
10 B. L. Kashyap 10.22 10 16.6 11.4 5.4
11 BSEL Infa 7.59 10 57 99.6 2045.1 8.6 9.2 4.4
12 Brahmaputra Infra 21.54 1 77.4 8.7 7.3
13 Bharat Road 82.62 10 75 1.6 100.9 -0.5 -99.9 0.8
14 C & C Construction 29.02 10 44.5 20.9 -3.2
15 C C C L 83.95 10 71 56.0 224.5 6.9 48.5 -30.8
16 Capaital Infra 25.45 10 199.7 21.4 34.7
17 Delta Corpn 79.70 2 73 36.6 146.0 5.74 -1.0
18 Dilip Buildcon 67.89 10 13.4 -140.4
19 Emami Infra 26.71 1 72 88.7 93.0 150.80 34.9 69.3
20 Elent Techno 136.77 10 96.98 19.5 52.4
21 Elpro Intl. 4.86 2 64 21.9 889.5 994 99.9
22 Gammon India Ltd. 10 0.00 58 360.1
23 Gammon Infra 4.0 1 26 60.9 0.5 13.16 45 15.5
24 Garnet Construction 13.8 2 21.64 -15.0 7.9
54 25 GMR Infra 73.91 2 74 43.5 212.9 -114.3 8.7 3.5
26 GPT Infra Project 188.37 10 16.5 33.8
27 Gyatri Project 13.90 1 65 121.8 14.3 3.9 61.7 -357.1
28 Hindustan Construction 603.59 10 727.9 14.5 17.1
29.9 2 32 55.4 933.2 54.7 15.3 1.4
35.45 1 323.70 17.1 -30.0
101.65 12 -0.5 574.2 717.5 10.5
82.1
44 104.2 1125.1 -99.9

35 56.3 277.9

76 135.5 5097.6

58 10.7 0.0

53 150.5 22.7

66 10.7 48.1

12 17.4 761.7

44 9.8 189.3

55 49.2 11.4

62 10.8 1179.8

July 2018 75 54.9 377.10

47 50.9 2115.40

28 26.7 4195.9

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

29 ITD Cementation 15.52 1 52 35.5 2871.8 195.3 6.8 48.3
30 IRB Infra. Devel. 351.45 10
31 IVRCL Infrastructure 156.58 2 57 71.3 3412.5 375.4 11.0 201.2
32 IL & FS Engg. 131.12 10
33 Jaiprakash Associates 486.49 2 5 4.8 2015.3 -370.8 -18.40 -127.6
34 J Kumar Infra 5
35 Jaypee Infratech 37.83 10 42 6.6 1820.2 -182.0 -10.00 -59.4
36 JMC Project 1388.93 10
37 KNR Construction 2 39 31.1 6219.30 -74.6 -1.2 3892.4
38 Larsen & Toubro 33.58 2
39 Madhucon Project 28.12 1 43 183.6 1437.5 247.3 17.2 104.9
40 Man Infra 280.21 2
41 Manjeera Const 7.38 10 72 38.5 962.10 363.7 -37.8 -876.4
42 Marg Construction 49.50 10
43 MEP Infra 12.51 10 67 205.4 2328.4 221.2 9.50 57.9
44 MBL Infrastructure 38.12 10
45 N.B.C.C. 162.57 2 57 63.7 1541.10 226.5 14.7 164.9
46 Nagarjuna Construction 41.45 2
47 Nila Infrastructure 180.0 1 0 328.4 65723.9 6638.1 10.1 4818.0
48 Noida Tolbridge 111.19 10
49 Patel Engineering 39.39 1 59 108.1 693.1 135.8 19.6 15.7
50 Prakash Construction 186.20 1
51 Pratibha Industries 15.70 2 83 27.6 158.1 28.5 18.0 50.3
52 Prajay Engg. 12.57 10
53 Punj Lloyd 47.72 2 74 7.7 34.50 1.6 4.5 1.7
54 PBA Infra 69.94 10
55 P V P Venture 67.12 10 17 54.8 88.3 -30.1 -34.1 -31.1
56 PNC Infra 13.50 2
55 57 PSP Construction 245.05 10 70 37.0 780.80 617.6 79.10 17.40
58 Ramky Infra 51.31 10
59 RPP Infrta Proj. 36.52 10 22 158.6 2271.2 13.6 0.6 -64.9
57.20
22.6 75 18.6 6279.40 401.9 6.4 351.2

20 61.9 7892.1 686.6 8.7 259.7

62 5.1 224.20 36.50 16.3 22.8

26 25.7 82.1 43.8 53.3 0.9

25 139.0 2925.6 529.5 18.1 57.9

27 9.5 211.8 10.0 4.7 3.7

15 14.2 1061.1 -442.5 -41.7 -816.4

33 86.9 52.3 -2.2 -4.3 -21.3

36 6.1 3761.0 -191.8 -5.1 -873.8

55 54.2 86.95 6.31 7.25 -31.72

58 25.5 37.7 26.5 70.2 20.7

56 61.3 1689.1 221.3 13.1 192.0

72 71.9 400.8 65.7 16.4 41.2

July 2018 68 49.2 1524.6 90.1 6.5 18.9

53 75.7 14.9 2.0 13.7 24.0

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

60 Reliance Indl. Infra 15.10 10 45 207.2 93.2 19.10 20.5 9.0

61 RKEC Projects 23.99 10 0 25.1 197.2 28.40 14.4 13.1

62 Sadhbav Engineering 17.16 1 47 96.8 3320.3 355.2 10.7 174.9

63 Shree Ram EPC 971.53 10 29 16.7 519.7 15.6 3.0 -226.8

64 Shree Ram Urban 41.13 10 70 44.6 75.4 -51.9 -68.6 -49.7

65 Simplex Infrastructure 9.89 2 56 309.5 5607.5 695.3 12.4 123.1

66 Simplex Projects 12.60 10 56 91.7 486.7 45.3 9.3 2.7

67 Shristi Infra 22.20 10 75 180.5 100.2 39.8 39.7 2.3

68 SPML Infra 7.33 2 60 134.15 1661.1 113.0 6.8 8.6

69 Skil Infrastructure 216.57 10 64 122.0 0 0 -99.9 -103.0

70 Shree Krishna 28.0 10 55 21.8 22.1 5.5 25.0 2.0

71 Sadhbav Infra 352.2 10 69 38.1 285.5 154.5 54.1 41.1

72 Sri Krishana Const. 9.5 10 63 22.5 10.3 1.6 15.5 2.3

73 SSDPL Ltd. 12.9 10 54 58.2 112.5 26.8 23.8 16.3

56 74 Sab Industries 15.2 10 74 38.8 19.3 -1.2 -6.1 2.4

75 Shardha Infraporject 9.64 10 0 47.2 38.5 3.2 8.3 4.2

76 Tantia Construction 28.74 10 73 21.0 285.3 19.1 6.7 -63.8

77 Texmaco Infra 12.74 1 61 32.4 14.6 6.40 43.6 12.3

78 Unity Infrastructure 24.18 2 60 -86.7 247.1 -246.9 -99.9 -1100.3

79 Vascon Engineers 167.66 10 38 37.1 216.6 -3.9 -1.8 1.4

80 Vipul Ltd. 12.0 1 63 34.4 226.4 27.4 12.1 2.4

81 VKJ Infra Dev 17.85 1 26 1.5 4.2 -0.3 -7.7 0.0

82 Welspun Enterprises 147.77 10 45 91.6 300.5 -44.8 -14.9 -9.9
Total
8393.71 155531.75 14851.38 Avg OPM 6415.9

9.548777018

July 2018 Comments : 82 Construction / Infrastructure Companies have declared their annual results for 2016-17 . Out of 82 companies, 60 companies having a paid
up capital of Rs.4014.75 Crore, shown a profit of 11861.1 crore over a sale / turnover of rs.134196.15 crore avargeing a profit of 197.68 crore each company and
22 companies having a paid up capital of Rs.4378.98 Crore, shown a loss of Rs.5445.2 crore over sale / turnover of 21335.65 averaging a loss of 247.5 crore each
company. The overall result of the constriction / infrastructure sector - 82 companies have shown a profit of Rs.6415.9 Crore over a sale / turnover of Rs..
155531.8 crore with an operating profit margin of Rs.14851.38 Crores. The average Operating Profit Margin of the company is 9.54% and average profit of
Rs.78.24 Crore each company.

Source : As per results printed in the Share Capital Market Magzine from September 2017 onwards under the Head Results of Construction Companies

GST on Builders & Real Estate Transactions

GST has created a lot of Dunkerley & Co. (Madras)
curiosity amongst the Ltd. as reported in [1958] 9
builders and contractors STC 353 (SC), had held that
fraternity. With a lot of grey State Government does not
areas, even the tax have the authority to tax the
professionals are most goodsportion in a works contract of construction of
concerned about the a building.
applicability of GST
provisions read with rules, Thereafter, in the year 1983, on the advice of Law
notifications, plethora of Commission, Constitution got amended. In this
precedents delivered in the amendment, the concept of deemed sales was
earlier regime and very introduced under Article 366(29A) which
many circulars and press empowered the States to levy Sales Tax on Works
releases issued by States on Contract.
transitional provisions.
A works contract typically consists of two elements,
In these circumstances, with the experience of more the goods and the service portion. So the moot
than 10 years in this sector, the author Mr. Sandesh question was "Whether Sales tax is to be paid on
Mundra* has made an attempt to compile all the entire consideration or only on goods portion of a
issues, whether small or big, and provide an works contract"?
optimum solution for all such issues. The title of the
publication is, "GST on Builders & Real Estate After 1983, it took almost 11 years for the judiciary
Transactions". to seal this issue. In the landmark judgement of
Gannon Dunkerley and Co. vs The State of Rajasthan
The brief content that the publication covers are:- and Ors. as reported in 1994 (1) WLC 554 on 28
February, 1994, the Apex Court provided a
• Affordable housing. mechanism to compute sales tax on a works contract
transactions. Post this judgement, all the States
• Taxability of contractors and sub-contractors. implemented the same concept in their Sales tax laws
which even continued under the VAT regime.
• Treatment of Retention & withheld amount.
Service Tax was introduced in the year 1994. Initially,
• Free of cost supplies & site transfers. only 3 services were made liable to Service Tax.
Through the Finance Act, 2004, i.e. w.e.f. 10-09-2004,
• Liquidated damages & settlements. services of commercial or industrial construction
were brought under the tax net. Thereafter, service
• Job work & onsite manufacturing. portion of works contracts got added to thelist of
taxable services w.e.f. 01-06-2007 and later services
• Joint development and redevelopment. of construction of complex i.e. sale of under
construction real estate was covered on 01-07-2010.
• Transfer of land and its development rights.
Until 2013, there was still a dilemma whether VAT
• Interplay between GST & RERA. is to be paid by a real estate developer?

A synopsis of the book is as follows:- In the year 2013, the larger bench of Apex Court, in
the case of M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr. Vs
When one thinks of "Works contract" what comes to State of Karnataka & Anr dated 14-11-2013 affirmed
mind are "precedents". Judiciary has on most the law pronounced by the two judge bench in the
occasions come to our rescue when the revenue case of K Raheja Development Corporation Vs State
prone officers have used the lack of clarity in the of Karnataka and held that a real estate developer is
laws to their advantage.

Taking you back to the period when works contract
started gaining limelight. In the year 1958, the Apex
Court in the case of State of Madras Vs Gannon

* Chairman, BAI's Goods & Service Tax Committee (Contd. on pg. no.59 ....)

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION 57 July 2018

Rising Steel Prices – BAI takes cognizance

In our June 2018 issue, we had informed that the 27th Steel Consumers’ Council meeting was scheduled to be held on
29th June 2018 in Bengaluru and which was to be chaired by Shri Chaudhary Birender Singh, Hon’ble Union
Minister of Steel. Mr. A. Puhazhendi, President, BAI and Mr. Raju John, Executive Secretary, BAI attended the
meeting. Mr. A. Puhazhendi had addressed a letter, which was also printed in the June 2018 issue. On the sidelines
of the meeting Mr. A. Puhazendi, President, BAI interacted with the Hon’ble Minister, wherein he drew the attention
of the Hon’ble Minister to the problems of the building and construction industry vis-à-vis high steel prices.
Subsequently Mr. A. Puhazendi addressed another letter to the Hon’ble Minister, which is printed herein below.

Ref: 193/J/2018-19 dated July 5, 2018

ShriChaudharyBirender Singh
Hon’bleUnion Minister of Steel,
Government of India,
Room No.192, UdyogBhawan,
Rafi Marg, NEW DELHI.

Respected Sir,

Sub: JPC Meeting held at Bangalore on 29th June 2018.

Builders’ Association of India (BAI) is an apex all Manufacturers. The Steel used by the Construction
India body of Engineering Construction Contractors Industry is called ‘long products’.
and Real Estate Companies founded in 1941, with
more than 18,000 business entities as members Sir, Steel prices were going on at a stable rate for the
through its 170 plus Centres (Branches) throughout last two to three years and all of a sudden, the price
the country. Regional Associations Affiliated to BAI of ‘long products’, used by the Construction
form indirect membership of more than 1,00,000. The Industry, started moving abnormally upward. Sir,
fundamental aim of the Association is to bring about we strongly feel, there is no reason warranting to
all round improvements in the construction sector, such a steep price increase, as there was no sizeable
while striving towards resolution of operational as increase in input cost nor there was a bigger
well as policy level problems faced by the demand from the industry.
construction industry. This involves making efforts
to obtain from policy makers and authorities, the Sir, Construction Contractors, both in Government
level of attention that the construction industry and Private Contracts work with Fixed Term and
deserves in view of its tremendous contribution and Fixed Price. Any increase in the price of construction
importance to the economy. materials, will therefore have an implication at the
total value of the contract as most the Department
At the outset, we express our sincere appreciation has dispensed with reimbursement of price
and admiration to you and your team of officials for escalation clauses.
holding 27th Steel Consumers’ Council Meeting. The
meeting was well organized and the participants Sir, the price increase of’ ‘long products’ or ‘steel
were happy about your briefing of Steel Industries’ rods’ is in the range of 30% to 50% in most of the
performance. cities and the price rise have been severely affected
in the Southern States. BAI express its apprehension
Sir, Construction Industry is the second largest that, the price increase is due to the concerted
industry in India after agriculture. It accounts for arrangement by the Steel Manufacturers, as there
about 15% of the GDP and it employs more than was auniformity in price increase manufactured by
50 million workers directly and indirectly. It has all Steel Manufacturers.In other words, price
forward and backward linkages with more than 250 increase was not due to the demand supply
allied industries. mismatch, where as it was due to the handiwork of
a few industrialists with a view to profiteering.
Sir, Construction Industry consumes around one-
third of the total steel manufactured by the Steel Sir, we are sure that, you also will agree with us that,

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION 58 July 2018

Construction Industry has recorded its lowest Industry will affect the fortunes of more than 250
growth rate for the last 3 to 4 years barring the road industries, which has forward and backward
construction. In this scenario, it is difficult to fathom linkages with Construction Industry. The abnormal
as to how Steel prices have gone up to this level, as steel price increase will also affect the Affordable
it has created havoc in the estimation and actual Housing, Make in India, Smart City, Major
execution of the contracts. Infrastructure Projects and many flagship projects
of the Central Government.
Sir, to the pointed question of the undersigned We, therefore sincerely request to the Hon’ble
during the meeting held at Bangalore on 29th June Minister to look into the abnormal steel price increase
2018, Ms. RichikaChoudhary, Hon’bleJoint and prevail upon the Steel Manufacturers to bring
Secretary, Steel Ministry, have informed that, a down the Steel Price, otherwise it will affect the
Committee is formed to look into the Steel price vehicle of economic development of the country.
increase, particularly this Committee is checking Through this letter, we also seek your personal
the ‘profiteering’ aspect of the Steel Manufacturers. audience on any venue, date and time convenient to
you.
Sir, it is surprising to note that, even after the gap of Thanking you,
nearly 10 months, the Government of India, who has
access to the data like input cost, operating profit, Yours faithfully,
production cost, tax impact etc. etc., are still could
not find the reason for such abnormal steel price A. PUHAZHENDI
increase. The unwarranted abnormal steel price President
increase have resulted unemployment of millions
of workers engaged in the Construction Industry, Builders’ Association of India
as the contractors have either shut down or brought
down the pace of construction.Similarly, several
lakhs of Civil Engineers neither get a suitable job nor
the Construction Industry scenario is conducive for
self-employment. It may also be worthwhile to be
pointed out here that, any slackness in Construction

Copy to: Shri Vishnu Deo Sai Ms. Richika Choudhary
Hon’ble Minister of State Hon’ble Joint Secretary,
Union Ministry of Steel, Union Ministry of Steel,
Room No.145, Udyog Bhawan, Udyog Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi Rafi Marg, New Delhi

(....Contd. from pg. no. 57)

also a works contractor. Post this judgement, all the mixed supplies, place of supply in relation to
VAT Acts incorporated necessary provisions and immovable property, restriction of works contract
levied VAT on developers. Although some had only to immovable properties coupled with existence
started much before. ofArticle 366(29A) and much more…. .

When the dust finally settled post 2013 and the With this publication, the author intends to answer
construction sector wasexpecting some stability some of the issues arising or expected to arise in GST
under the indirect tax regime, GST knocked their for the construction and the real estate sector. It is
doors and unsettled everything. hoped that the book will be able to cater to most of
the questions that readers are expected to face.
Under GST regime, works contracts have been
classified as a service. Besides, GST has some For further queries or for a counter view, please write to
interesting provisions on offer like Composite & [email protected]

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION 59 July 2018

[Temporary Injunction/Civil Procedure Code] produced on record clearly
indicates that the appellant has
2016 (2) ABR-477 carried out further extension to
the structure. The relief of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT injunction is discretionary and
MUMBAI can be exercised by the court only
when the person has cash to the
Before Justice R. D. DhanukaJ. court with clean hands and has
not suppressed the material facts and makes out
Mohd. Ismail GulamShaikh a prima-facie case.
…..Appellant/Plaintiffv/s
A person who violates the order of status-Quo
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai (MCGM) granted by this court, cannot be granted by this
…..Respondent/Defendants court. A perusal of the order passed by the Trial
Judge clearly indicates that the appellant was
By this appeal the appellant has challenged the given an opportunity to produced all the
order passed by the Trial Judge refusing to grant documents and all those documents were
ad-interim relief in favour of the appellant considered by the trial judge and rightly rejected
(original plaintiff) in notice motion inter alia the interim relief.
praying for an injunction praying for an
injunction against MCGM (defendants) from A perusal of record further indicates that after
acting upon or from taking any steps pursuant obtaining the ad-interim order of status-Quo
to the notice dated December, 2014 issued against from this court, the appellant has extended the
the appellant under the provisions of MRTP Act, temporary structure in the suit premises. The
1966 in respect of the suit premises at Colaba, application for obtaining shop & establishment
Mumbai. licence shows that he started the business in the
premises some-time in the year 2014, whereas,
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that in plaint he say that he is causing or business
the impugned structure was in existence since prior to 1961-61. The appellant has taken law in
1961-62 and that the appellant has been carrying his hand by committing prima-facie violation of
on his business from the said structure and also the status-Quo order. This appeal from order is
residing therein. The said structure (ie) the suit according by dismissed with no order as to costs.
premises was not a temporary structure. After
receiving the notice from MCGM the appellant ¾ It took 410 days to construct 437
filed a suit in the Civil Court and submitted meter tall Empire State Building
various documents to (ie) Deed of Dictation Dt. in New York.
11-5-1949, notices received from MCGM (since
2005) electric bills, telephone bills etc. however, ¾ It took 1276 days to construct 828
the corporation did not give personal hearing. meter tall Burj Khalifa in Dubai.
The corporation did not correctly considered the
documents before passing the order that the suit ¾ It took 90 days to construct 838
premises are unauthorized and therefore, the meter tall Sky City in Hunan,
entire action of corporation is without china.
jurisdiction.
¾ According to U.S. Business Magazine Forbes,
On behalf of MCGM it was submitted the L&T is ranked 9th out of 100 most innovative
appellant has violated the order of status- firms in the world.
Quoand has created further encroachment on the
public road and also on the open and has
expanded the unauthorized construction. On
behalf of the intervener a copy of application
filed by the appellant for obtaining shop &
establishment license was submitted to the court
which shows that he has started business in 2014.

The Ld. Judge observed that the photographs

INDIAN CONSTRUCTION 60 July 2018