Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JANARTHANAM
Chemech Engineers Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Director of Industries and Commerce, and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.7718 of 1982
Decided On : 14 July 1993
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE - ALLOTMENT OF PLOT - CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT - REGULARISATION OF ALLOTMENT - DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND THEORY OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION - APPLICABILITY - PARALLEL REMEDIES - PURSUIT OF - PERMISSIBILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-company applied for allotment of a plot in the Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Madras and it was consequently favoured with an order of allotment by the first respondent in the year 1967. The company took possession of the plot on 4-11-1968. The company neither paid the subsequent instalment within the dates due; nor commenced or completed the construction within time, stipulated or at any subsequent point of time. The first respondent cancelled the order of allotment by his letter dated 17-5-1972. The company made several attempts to have the allotment regularised, but all such attempts failed. The company started storing materials in the plot to make it appear that it is making arrangements for laying foundation and in such process, it had put up fencing around the plot. The Development Officer, SIDCO, Industrial Estate, Ambattur requested the company to remove the fence and other materials kept there on or before 20-9-1982 or otherwise, they will not be handed over to the company but removed from the plot and the charges of removal will be debited to its account. The company challenged the action of the authorities in taking steps for removal of the alleged trespass committed by the company by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The company did not comply with any of the formalities required to be complied with as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order. The company even without challenging the earlier orders of cancellation and resumption of possession, which aspect is getting revealed only by the correspondence produced pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, resorted to the present action, even suppressing the factum of resumption of possession and challenging the action of the authorities in taking steps for removal of the trespass committed by the company. The company cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time.
Issues: 1. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the theory of legitimate expectation are applicable in the present case? 2. Whether the company can pursue parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The doctrine of promissory estoppel and the theory of legitimate expectation are not applicable in the present case as there was no declaration, act to omission made or done by any of the authorities which created such an impression amounting to promise or inducing a belief or expectation in the mind of the company that the order of allotment still subsisted, in the sense of the order of cancellation having been revoked at any point of time, thereby making the company to proceed further and alter its position to its detriment. 2. The company cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
M/s. Chemech Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Egmore, Madras-600008 (petitioner - for short 'company') is a private limited company said to be carrying on business of construction of various types of chemical plants. The company applied to the Director of Industries and Commerce, Madras-600005 (first respondent) for allotment of a developed plot in the Industries Estate, Ambattur, Madras-600058. The Plot Bearing No. 108 measuring an extent of 1 acre 70 cents (renumbered and sub-divided as Plots Nos. 108A, 108B and 108C, each measuring 57 cents, after addition of one cent making a total of 1 acre 71 cents) at Ambattur Industries Estate was allotted to the company by that first respondent on 8-8-1967.
2. Cost of plot at Rs. 30, 000/- per acre works out at Rs. 51, 000/-. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, 50% of the cost, namely, Rs. 25, 500/-should be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order of allotment and the balance in two instalments (viz., 25% of the cost is payable within two years from the date of taking possession of the plot and the balance is payable within one year from the date on which the second instalment falls due) and failure to pay the amount of 50% of the cost within 15 days thereof will automatically result in the cancellation of the allotment. Allotment of the plot may be reserved for a further period beyond 15 days on written requisition, which may extend up to one year, on payment of reservation charges at 7-1/2% per annum. The allottee of the plot shall commence construction within six months and complete construction within two years from the date of taking possession of the plot, besides finalisation of the assignment formalities.
3. The company, however, did not comply with the condition of payment of 50% of the cost on issuance of allotment order within 15 days thereof; but preferred to avail reservation of allotment of plot for a maximum period of one year by payment of reservation charges. Innumerable reminders had been sent for remittance of 50% of the cost and only on 5-8-1968, nearly after a lapse of one year, the company has chosen to remit the amount, besides payment of Rs. 150/- by means of a cheque together with its letter dated 30-3-1970 towards 50% of the cost of one cent added.
4. On 4-11-1968, the company took possession of the plot. Despite lapse of two years since taking possession of the plot, the company neither paid the balance of instalments due; nor taken steps to commence and complete construction, besides finalisation of assignment formalities.
5. To the demand notices issued on 17-12-1970, 19-1-1971, 9-2-1971 and 6-3-1971, the company, in its letter dated 31-3-1971, explained its tight financial position and its other difficulties, besides indicating that it was taking early steps to prepare the plan of the factory building. The first respondent issued an ultimatum in his letter dated 12-4-1971 to comply with the terms and conditions on or before 25-4-1971 positively.
6. The first respondent again, in his letter dated 15-5-1971, requested the company to comply with the directions of his letter dated 12-4-1971. No reply forthcame. The first respondent, however, in his letter dated 24-5-1971 directed the company to send its reply to the letters dated 31-3-1971 and 12-4-1971 stating that if no reply was received by 5-6-1971, it would be presumed that the company was not interested in the allotment and action would be taken to resume the plot without any further notice. The company, by its letter dated 2-6-1971, informed the first respondent that the plan for the proposed factory building was under preparation and consequently, requested time by 45 days to submit the plans for approval. But even thereafter, nothing proceeded further, in the sense of submission of plan for approval and commencement and completion of the construction.
7. The first respondent, in his letter dated 5-2-1972, informed the company that the cost of the building was reduced from Rs. 30
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
