Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta, JJ.
Aman Semi-Conductors (Pvt.) Ltd. - Appellant(s)
Versus
Haryana State Industrial Devlopment Corporation Ltd. & Anr. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No(s). 572-573 of 2010
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Real estate – Resumption of industrial plot for non-fulfilment of terms and conditions of allotment – Complaint dismissed by Fora below – Development of industrial areas was part of State’s overall project for promoting industries and growth of its economy, with objective of providing livelihood – Stipulation in allotment letter, requiring allottees to construct their respective projects and start it, was essential – Allottee did not take any step towards setting up unit he proposed – Appellant was always insincere and perhaps never intended to follow up and set up industrial project which he proposed to HSIDC, as the basis for allotment of his plot – Appellant failed to commence construction within stipulated time – Idea behind development of industrial plots and allotting them to deserving applicants is to act as a catalyst to promote economic growth – Appellant never made any genuine effort to start its unit – Impugned order does not call for interference – HSIDC directed to refund money alongwith 6% interest. (Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals, by special leave, are directed against orders1 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). NCDRC allowed a revision petition filed by the respondent corporation.
Findings of Court:
This Court would have been justified in holding that the appellant is only entitled to refund of the sum of ? 1,66,425/- which was paid for the plot. However, there is no denial of the fact that cheque issued to him was returned and HSIDC had the benefit of those monies all these years.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The present appeals, by special leave, are directed against orders1[Dated 11.01.2007 in RP No.3125/2003 and order dated 07.11.2008 in Misc. Application No. 711/2008 in Revision Petition No. 3125/2003.] of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter “NCDRC”). The NCDRC allowed a revision petition filed by the respondent corporation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a proprietary concern applied for an industrial plot of the proposed project on 28-02-1994 in Industrial State Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. The respondent corporation (hereinafter “HSIDC”) called the appellant’s proprietor, Modi Lal Gupta, for an interview on 09-09-1994. A letter of intent was issued indicating certain conditions on 05-10-1994. The appellant informed that he could not start the production in time on the ground that there were no basic infrastructure facilities as electricity, sewerage, telephone and proper road, etc., and requested for extension of time of three months. After sanction of the loan by HSIDC, on 13-09-1995, a letter of allotment of plot was issued which stipulated certain terms and conditions. On 02-11-1995 possession was handed over to the allottee/appellant.
3. The appellant did not fulfil the required conditions of the allotment. No concrete step to set up the industrial unit on the allotted site was initiated by it. As a result, HSIDC issued a notice, on 13-12-1996 asking the appellant to show cause why the plot should not be resumed on account of its failure to fulfil the terms and conditions of the allotment. In response, the appellant, on 12-02-1998, wrote back to the HSIDC. The letter or reply alleged that no basic infrastructure facilities as electricity, sewerage, telephone and proper road, etc., existed near the site, and, as a result, it was not possible to start the construction. The appellant sought extension of time by a year.
4. On 23-03-1998, HSIDC issued final notice asking why the plot should not be resumed for the appellant’s failure to fulfil the terms and conditions of allotment. The appellant wrote a letter, again on 19-04-1998 requesting for extension of time. Since appellant did not come forward to satisfy the HSIDC by producing any document in response to its letter dated 19-04-1998 about the steps taken, HSIDC, on 18-09-1998 resumed the plot stating that the appellant was not serious in implementing the project and that the plot was lying vacant. HSIDC enclosed a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,66,425 with the letter towards the refund and the appellant was requested to handover the possession of the plot to the Field Officer.
5. The appellant approached the District Forum, Gurgaon2[In CPA No 1697 of 07.10.1998] with a complaint. The District Forum, Gurgaon, assumed that since the State Government has changed the policy without referring to the policy, it went on to hold that the complainant was unable to complete the project not on account of negligence on the part of the complainant but because of the circumstances which were beyond its control. HSIDC appealed to the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal3[In First Appeal No 1010 of 29.04.2003], upon which HSIDC filed a revision petition before the NCDRC, which was dismissed on the ground of delay4[In Revision Petition No 3125 of 2003]. The HSIDC’s special leave petition to this court succeeded, and an order was made on 10.11.20035[In Civil Appeal No 5672/2004] directing the NCDRC, to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits.
6. The NCDRC, after remand, allowed HSIDC’s revision application. It held that the grounds taken and the reasons given by the appellant were vague and evasive and does not disclose any particular date or any time frame for taking up and completing construction. It was also held that the appellant did not show what concrete steps were taken and that his conduct and correspondence could not be taken to be a proper explanation or sufficient ground for non-com
Resumption of industrial plot for non-fulfilment of terms and conditions of allotment is justified.
The government may resume industrial land for non-utilization by the allottee, with decisions supported by assignment rules and public interest considerations.
The court established that procedural errors and good faith efforts to fulfill conditions can mitigate penalties in industrial allotment cases.
A subsequent allottee can claim an alternative plot if the original plot is embroiled in legal issues, validating consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act.
The court emphasized that failure to comply with payment directives, as mandated by public notice, results in cancellation of allotment, and timely action to enforce rights is critically important.
A contracting party is bound to fulfill the conditions set forth in a lease agreement; failure to do so legitimizes cancellation of the contract by authorities, despite claims of external difficultie....
(1) Subsequent purchaser - subsequent purchaser who takes over the obligation of the Original purchaser to pay the balance amount, would not per se excluded from the description of a Consumer and eve....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
