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

2021 Supreme(SC) 87

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
UNITECH Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2021 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9019 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2021 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10135 of 2019 And With Civil Appeal No. 319 of 2021 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17529 of 2019
Decided on : 17-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. N. Venkataraman, ASG
State of Telangana : Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv.

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act 2014 - Section 68, 53, 71 and 65 - Land - Allotment - First installment - Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (“APIIC”) invited bids to “develop, design and construct” an integrated township project / multi services aerospace park in the area of about 350 acres of land in Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - In pursuance of its press release, APIIC floated a bid document - bid submitted by Unitech was accepted upon payment of an earnest money deposit of 20 crores - It was contractually required to pay an amount of Rs 140 crores as project land cost and Rs 5 crores towards project development expenses - A litigation in regard to land was pending - While issuing a Letter of Award (“LoA”), APIIC made allotment of land subject to the outcome of the pending litigation - Whether by way of an advance or an earnest money deposit) until Reference Date – Held, Court clarify that following course of action which has been adopted by learned Single Judge, Court are not adjudicating finally upon the rights inter se between TSIIC and APIIC. TSIIC shall refund the amounts due and payable to Unitech in terms of present judgment - Unitech’s claim to compensatory payment cannot be defeated on sole ground of payment of stamp duty - Development Agreement shall have to be impounded and be presented to Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in State of Telangana for assessment of stamp duty and to competent authority for registration - Assessment shall be completed within thirty days - Appropriate stamp duty and registration charges liable to be paid in terms of the determination shall be paid by TSIIC and be deducted from refund due and payable to Unitech under terms of this order - Appeals shall stand disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

A. Background

B. Proceedings before this Court

C. Salient features of the transaction documents

D. Submissions of the parties

E. Analysis

E.1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226

E.2. Contractual right to compensatory payment

E.3. Apportionment of the liabilities between the instrumentalities of the state of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana

F. Summation

A. Background

1. The appeals arise from a judgment dated 1 April 2019 of a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana. Three appeals will form the subject matter of these proceedings. The three appeals which arise have been instituted by -

(i) UNITECH Limited (“Unitech”);

(ii) Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (“TSIIC”); and

(iii) State of Telangana.

2. In September 2007, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (“APIIC”) invited bids to “develop, design and construct” an integrated township project / multi services aerospace park in the area of about 350 acres of land in Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In pursuance of its press release, APIIC floated a bid document.

3. On 28 November 2007, the bid submitted by Unitech was accepted upon payment of an earnest money deposit of 20 crores. It was contractually required to pay an amount of Rs 140 crores as project land cost and Rs 5 crores towards project development expenses. A litigation in regard to the land was pending. While issuing a Letter of Award (“LoA”), APIIC made the allotment of the land subject to the outcome of the pending litigation. The LoA stipulated that:

    "17. The allotment of said land is subject to the outcome of the Appeal Suit No. 274/2007 in (OS No. 155/05), WP Nos. 19670/07, 20667/07 and 22043/07 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh."

4. Pursuant to accepting the LoA on 3 December 2007, Unitech paid the first installment of Rs 15 crores towards the purchase price of the land. This was followed by the second installment for Rs 20 crores on 4 December 2007. On 27 December 2007, it deposited an amount of Rs 5 crores towards project development expenses. On 1 January 2008, it paid the third installment of Rs 35 crores towards the purchase price of the land.

5. On 5 January 2008, APIIC while acknowledging the receipt of the three installments of Rs 70 crores towards the cost of land directed the Zonal Manager, Shamshabad Zone, Hyderabad to hand over the project site to enable Unitech to commence survey and planning work. The fourth installment of Rs 35 crores towards the purchase price of the land was paid on 11 January 2008, while the fifth installment for another Rs 35 crores was paid on 25 January 2008. Unitech paid, in the above manner, a total amount of Rs 165 crores: Rs 140 crores towards the cost of land, Rs 20 crores towards earnest money deposit and Rs 5 crores towards project development expenses.

6. On 19 August 2008, a Development Agreement was entered into between APIIC, Unitech and Nacre Gardens Hyderabad Limited, formerly known as (Unitech Hyderabad Township Limited), a special purpose vehicle formed to execute the project.

7. On 29 April 2011, APIIC issued a notice to show cause to Unitech to commence work on the project land. On 11 May 2011, Unitech requested APIIC to intimate, within seven days, the steps being taken to handover the land with reference to the provisions of Article 13.3(b) of the Development Agreement which mandated an encumbrance-free handover. The response to APIIC’s show-cause notice dated 29 April 2011 was further re-iterated in Unitech’s letter dated 14 May 2011 stating that APIIC would have to first establish its title to the land and to remove the encumbrances, before work could commence.

8. On 21 May 2011, APIIC was informed that a ‘political force majeure event’ within the meaning of the Development Agreement had taken place. O


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