SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(SC) 197

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. Chandrachud, CJI., O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.
Chandigarh Paper Board Mills Private Limited
Versus
Chief Commissioner, Union Territory Of Chandigarh
Case No., 1371 of 1972
Date of Decision, 11/10/82
Advocates Appeared: Chandra Girish, Dave Vimal, Subhashini A.

Advocates:
A.Subhashini, GIRISH CHANDRA, VIMAL DAVE

Headnote:

Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 – Transferee - Conveyance – Exception - Which was executed by State in favor of appellant says that transferee that is to say appellant shall not use site sold to him for a purpose other than an industrial purpose and further that be shall not use construction on it for a purpose other than for which it has been constructed except in accordance with rules - There is no doubt that what was intended by this clause was that site sold to appellant shall not be used by him for a commercial purpose as contradistinguished from an industrial purpose that is to say that he shall use it for purpose of his own industry or business but not for any other purpose - Held, It is common ground that appellant has constructed a weighing bridge on the site sold to him and he is allowing members of general public to use that weighing bridge on payment - He was entitled to construct weighing bridge and to use it for his own purposes but to extent that he allows the members of the general public to use it he has violated terms of Clause (9 - Impugned order therefore by which appellant is called upon to discontinue user of weighing bridge for any purpose save his own is valid and no exception can be taken to it - Appeal is dismissed.

(1) CLAUSE (9) of the conveyance dated 4/11/1958 which was executed by the State of Punjab in favour of the appellant says that the transferee, that is to say, the appellant, shall not use the site sold to him for a purpose other than an industrial purpose and further that be shall not use the construction on it for a purpose other than for which it has been constructed, except in accordance with the rules made under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. There is no doubt that what was intended by this clause was that the site sold to the appellant shall not be used by him for a commercial purpose as contradistinguished from an industrial purpose, that is to say, that he shall use it for the purpose of his own industry or business but not for any other purpose. It is common ground that the appellant has constructed a weighing bridge on the site sold to him and he is allowing members of the general public to use that weighing bridge on payment. He was entitled to construct the weighing bridge and to use it for his own purposes but to the extent that he allows the members of the general public to use it, he has violated the terms of Clause (9).

(2) THE impugned order, therefore, by which the appellant is called upon to discontinue the user of the weighing bridge for any purpose save his own is valid and no exception can be taken to it. The judgment of the High court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top