IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Ascendas IT Park (Chennai) Limited, Chennai, Rep. By its Authorised signatory A. Senthil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited (TIDCO), Rep. By its Chairman & Managing Director, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 13949 of 2021 & W.M.P.No. 14819 of 2021
Decided On : 15-06-2022
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to earmark and lay the proposed road linking Taramani Road and Velacherry Road in the lands bearing Survey Nos.T.S.Nos.1/5 and 1/9 of Thiruvanmiyur Village, formerly Mylapore – Triplicane Taluk now Velacherry Taluk and in S.Nos.300/2B, 300/2C and 301/3 of Kottivakkam Village, formerly Tambaram Taluk now Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai, Tamil Nadu admeasuring 26.64 acres, as per clause 2.2 of the said Associate Sector Agreement dated 17th June 2003 between the 1st respondent and the petitioner.)
The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to earmark and lay the proposed road linking Taramani Road and Velacherry Road admeasuring 26.64 acres, adjoining to the land leased out to them, as per clause 2.2 of the said Associate Sector Agreement dated 17th June 2003 between the 1st respondent and the petitioner.
Facts of the case:
2. The petitioner is a joint venture company between the 1st respondent and Ascendas Property Fund Pte Limited, a group company of CapitaLand, Singapore. CapitaLand, amongst other businesses in India, inter alia, is engaged in the business of developing Information Technology Parks (IT Park) and “built to suit” solutions. Ascendas India Private Limited, in pursuant to an initiative by the Government of Tamil Nadu to create IT parks/hubs in Chennai, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.07.2002 with the 1st respondent. Pursuant to the said Memorandum Of Understanding, an Associate Sector Agreement (ASA) dated 17.06.2003 was entered into by the said company with the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner was incorporated jointly by the said company with the 1st respondent on 03.11.2003 with a view to develop the land to an extent of 15 acres located at Thiruvanmiyur and Kanagam Villages in Velacherry Taluk. The said land measuring 15 acres at CSIR Road at Taramani, Chennai was allotted to the petitioner by the Government of Tamil Nadu on various dates in terms of Associate Sector Agreement (ASA) dated 17.06.2003. The petitioner, subsequently developed and constructed buildings in three phases known as -Pinnacle-, -Crest- and -Zenith- [hereinafter referred to as -IT parks in the said land-].
2(a). On 11.04.2007, the Associate Sector Agreement (ASA) dated 17.06.2003 was amended by deleting certain clauses, but clause 2.2 of Associate Sector Agreement (ASA) was retained, which reads as follows: 2.2. The Company will use the current access of Taramani road for the Project and First party agrees to lay a connecting road by start of the third phase to both the Velacherry and Taramani roads”
2(b). The 1st respondent agreed to lay a connecting road at the time of petitioner starting the development of third phase. The proposed road was to be formed over an adjoining plot of the land and was to a butt the land allotted to the petitioner (known as ITPC). The 1st respondent agreed to lay the said road as and when the petitioner completes the first two phases as traffic would be increased to a great extent and a new connecting road would enable the traffic to avoid already congested Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR). The laying of new connecting road was discussed in the meeting and 1st respondent agreed to consider the laying of said road in all the Board Meetings. Originally, the connecting road was agreed to be in 9 meters in width and subsequently it was proposed to lay 18 meters width road. The 1st respondent raised the issue of bearing of cost of 9 meters road, as according to 1st respondent, only the Corporation of Chennai must bear the cost of laying the road. In the meeting held on 16.02.2005, when the petitioner pointed out that the 1st respondent agreed to pay the entire cost for developing the road of 9 meters width, the then
The court affirmed that disputes arising from contractual agreements lacking statutory characteristics are to be resolved through arbitration, and the invocation of performance guarantees is valid wh....
A writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for disputes relating to contractual obligations. Such disputes should be resolved through civil suits.
Rights of property must be compensated when construction causes damage beyond the right of way, violating Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.
The court affirmed that principles of natural justice do not apply to non-statutory, purely contractual disputes where parties must adhere to the terms of their contract.
Point of Law : Unless arbitrariness or mala fide on part of the tendering authority is alleged, expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to....
Contractual agreement - Whether existence of arbitral agreement between parties that High Court of Delhi alone will have jurisdiction to try dispute arising out of contract is enforceable in law - Un....
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.