SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., A.M.Ahmadi, S.Mohan, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority: Surgical Co-operative Industrial Estate
Versus
Surgical Co-operative Industrial Estate Limited: Delhi Development Authority
Case No. : 668-669 of 1988
Date of Decision : 8/16/93
Claim of compensation – Jurisdiction – Acquittal - It was further observed that they may be given plots if available, at current rates - Division bench noted that these persons did not appear to be serious about taking their plots and were, therefore, not entitled to benefit of lower rate - Their cases were directed to be placed before the Advisory Committee of the Delhi Development Authority to consider whether they should be given plots and if so at what rates. The appeal was allowed in respect of these fifteen persons - Advisory Committee has not recommended grant of any plots to these fifteen members and we do not see any reason why we should interfere with the order of Division bench in appeal insofar as they are concerned since they were throughout guilty of default - They have preferred an appeal against the order of Division bench which we have taken on board by consent but we see no reason to interfere with order and the consequential refusal to allot plots to them - Their Special Leave Petition will stand dismissed – Held, In regard to category two i.e. one existing unit holder and nine unit holders the position is that they failed to make payment within the time allowed and, therefore, they have not availed of the benefit granted to them by the division bench learned counsel for the Delhi Development Authority contended that plots which were earmarked for them are no more available and the going market price for a plot in that locality is as per latest auction - He therefore contended that these ten members must now compete with the others in the open market at the auction if they are still interested in plots - Court think that that is too high a price to pay for the default in the payment of the price as per the decision of the division bench. Since the litigation was pending it was not proper to dispose of the plots earmarked for them during the pendency of these proceedings. No doubt they have defaulted but by fresh offer when others were given, why not them - At interest amount would be considerably less yet we suggested to the learned counsel for these members to ascertain from their clients if they would be willing to purchase plots price in last auction - They conveyed their willingness to pay that price per square learned counsel for the Delhi Development Authority submitted that although he had no instructions from his clients in the matter his clients would abide by any just, reasonable and fair order that this court would make in the facts and circumstances of case - As stated earlier we had thought it fair and reasonable to fix price for these ten members which they have agreed to pay – Court therefore, partly allow the appeal of the Delhi Development Authority insofar as these ten members are concerned and direct that on their depositing the amount in respect of plots calculated Delhi Development Authority will allot them the plots at or near about the site in question - As the total amount to be paid would depend on area of plot Court would direct the Delhi Development Authority to communicate the amount which each of these ten members will be required to pay at the above rate and on receipt of such communication the said ten members will make the payment within one month failing which they will forfeit their right to claim the plots allotted to them - Be it noted that no extension of time will be given because this is the third indulgence given to them – Appeal disposed of
(1) PURSUANT to the decision taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs, government of India on 2/05/1961 an Expert Committee was constituted for regulating and controlling the urban development. On the basis of the report of the Expert Committee certain decisions were taken which included one relating to the allotment of land to entrepreneurs desirous of setting up industries. This function was assigned to the Delhi Development Authority. An Advisory Committee was set up to advise the Chief Commissioner in regard to the allotment of plots to industrialists who were required to remove their existing factories from the present locations to the industrial zone. One category of those entitled to allotment at pre-determined rates was a cooperative society. As a general policy the disposal of developed lands was to be by public auction except in the cases where land was required to be allotted at pre-determined rates i.e. rates determined on the basis of cost of acquisition and development plus certain additional charges to be charged on slab basis. On 24/08/1962 the respondents formed into a cooperative society and applied for allotment of land to its members. Out of the 39 members, 6 members had already established industrial units while the remaining 33 proposed to start new industries on allotted plots. The scheme prepared was for allotment of plots on the basis of a perpetual lease. On 1/10/1962 the society was informed by the Housing Commissioner that land would be allotted to it at fixed prices admissible to industrial cooperative societies. This was followed by a decision taken on 18/03/1968 that the 6 members would be allotted land at the reserved rate whereas the remaining 33 will be allotted land at commercial rates. Pursuant to the said decision the society was informed that the prices fixed for the 6 existing unit holders was Rs. 37.00 per square metre and for the remaining 33, Rs. 55.00 per square metre. Individual offers were forwarded to the members of the society. On 23/02/1970 the society conveyed its acceptance of the terms and conditions of allotment by a letter but subsequent thereto some dispute arose between the members of the society and the Delhi Development Authority as regards the rate at which the allotment should be made; the members insisting on a flat rate of Rs. 20.00 per square metre. This request of the society was not accepted by the Delhi Development Authority and the same was conveyed on 14/12/1971 with a directive that the written consent of the. members for acceptance of plots on the terms earlier indicated should reach the Delhi Development Authority within three days. The society was also cautioned that the offers would be withdrawn if the consent letters were not received within the stipulated time. Despite the same a fresh offer was made in June 1972 pursuantant whereto some of the members made the payment. The meeting of the society was called on January 3, 1972 and its decisions were communicated to the Delhi Development Authority but the latter took the stand that since the consent letters were not received within time the offer was treated as closed. Thereupon the society and its members filed a writ petition in the Delhi High court praying that the Delhi Development Authority should be directed to make the allotment at the pre-determined price. In the counter filed by the Delhi Development Authority the iatter contested the claim of the society and its members and contended that plots could not be allotted to all the members at the pre-determined price and that the price of Rs. 37.00 and Rs. 55.00 per square metre respectively fixed for the two categories of members was reasonable and since the society had earlier communicated its acceptance of the said terms it was estopped from resiling therefrom. The learned Single Judge in the High court who heard the petition applying the rule of estoppel held that the Delhi Development Authority was bound to allot plots on a perpetual lease b
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.