Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTURCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD - Appellant
Versus
M/S FRIENDS GARMENTS & ANR. - Respondents
RSA 329 of 2015
Decided on : 09-02-2017
For the Appellant :Ms.Renuka Arora and Mr.Kunal Kohli, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr.R.M.Sinha, Mr.P.M.Sinha, Mr.A.Srivastav, Ms.Namita Sinha and Mr.A.K.Shakya, Advocates.
The case established that public notices and media publicity are not sufficient substitutes for individual notices, and registrants cannot be denied their rights for failure to respond to public notices when the scheme itself did not envisage public notices.
Headnote:
Allotment Letter - Industrial Plot Allotment - [Section 80(2) CPC, W.P.(C) No.266/2007] - The court discussed the issue of whether the allotment letter was sent to the respondent/plaintiff before cancelling the allotment. The appellant argued that the allotment letter was sent and the respondent was informed about the extension of the deposit deadline through various communications and newspaper publications. However, the respondent, an illiterate tailor, claimed to have not received any communication and was unaware of the extension. The court found that the appellant failed to provide evidence of specific communication and upheld the lower courts' findings that no communication was sent to the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff, a tailor, applied for an industrial plot allotment and was found eligible. The appellant cancelled the allotment, claiming non-compliance with deposit requirements. The respondent denied receiving any communication about the allotment or the deposit deadline, leading to a civil suit for injunction and declaration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove the communication of allotment and deposit requirements to the respondent, upholding the lower courts' decision to decree the suit in favor of the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allotment letter or any communication regarding deposit requirements was sent to the respondent before the cancellation of the allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's failure to provide evidence of specific communication to the respondent led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to comply with the lower court's order to allot an alternative plot to the respondent.
RSA 329/2015
1. The appellant – Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (DSIDC) has impugned the concurrent findings of both the courts below; order dated 8th September, 2011 passed by the learned Trial Court and order dated 13th January, 2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff praying for the decree of permanent and mandatory injunction and declaration has been decreed returning a finding that no allotment letter was ever sent to the respondent/plaintiff by DSIDC before cancelling the allotment on 10th July, 2002 of plot No.58, Pocket-D, Sector-2, Bawana Industrial Area (measuring 100 sq.yds.) allotted to him.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law was formulated on 3rd February, 2017:-
‘Whether the findings of the Courts below in respect of the allotment letter being not sent by the Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited to the allottee are perverse?’
3. Ms.Renuka Arora, Advocate for the appellant has submitted that both the Courts below have held that no allotment letter was sent to the respondent/plaintiff ignoring the fact that even time for deposit of the charges was extended from 31st March, 2001 to 1st April, 2002 under orders of the Supreme Court which was widely published in all the leading newspapers. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure A-5 whereby attention of the allottees of plots/flat/factories under the Relocation Scheme was drawn by DSIDC publishing the following notice:-
‘DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
A3/4 State Emporia Building Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi – 110001 Ph.23369004, 23361759 23368024
(RELOCATION DIVISION)
ATTENTION
ALLOTTEES OF PLOTS/
FLAT/FACTORIES UNDER THE
RELOCATION SCHEME
In the Supreme Court hearing held on January 24, 2001 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the prayer of Delhi Government for extension of time for receipt of 100% payment in the case of allottees of Narela, Badli, Jhilmil and Patparganj Industrial Areas as well as 50% payment in the case of Bawana upto 31st March, 2001.
All concerned may note that those who do not make the payment by the above date will face cancellation of their allotment and no further correspondence in this regard will be entertained. Cancellation letters issues earlier in this regard may be ignored.
(Chief Manager (Relocation)’
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that not only allotment letter was sent, by publication in various newspapers also all the allottees were informed about the date of deposit being extended by the Supreme Court and the requirements to be complied with. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 9th September, 2011 by learned Trial Court whereby the additional issues were framed and without any opportunity to the parties to make submissions thereon, judgment was passed on the same day. It has also been contended that in this case, statement of account filed by the appellant/defendant before the Trial Court indicate that Rs.56938/- was also deposited pursuant to the allotment made. There could not have been any deposit by the respondent/plaintiff had he not been intimated about the allotment in his favour. Thus, both the Courts below misappreciated the evidence and wrongly held it to be a case where no allotment letter was sent to the respondent/plaintiff.
5. Mr.R.M.Sinha, Advocate for the respondent has submitted that this is a regular second appeal and the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited. On instructions from the respondent, who was present in person, learned counsel has submitted that except the initial payment deposited by him which was Rs.30,000/- he had not deposited any other amount pursuant to the allotment made to him. It has been contended that respondent is a tailor by profession and has not read the new
