Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sanjay Misra, J.
U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Another -Appellant
Versus
D.S. Mathur -Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 745 of 2010
Decided On : 14-05-2010
lease-deed - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the cancellation of a lease-deed by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and subsequent legal proceedings initiated by the allottee's wife under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Finding of the Court:
The District Judge found that the notice of cancellation of the lease-deed was not served on the allottee, leading to the conclusion that the allottee had no knowledge of the cancellation. The court also found that the wife of the allottee had the locus standi to maintain the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the service of notice of cancellation of the lease-deed, the locus standi of the wife of the allottee, and the application of the limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Corporation had sent notices to the allottee at various addresses, and the presumption of service of notice sent by post was not successfully rebutted. The court also found that the application invoking the Arbitration Clause was within the limitation period.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the application under Section 34 of the Act was rejected. The First Appeal From Order was allowed.
This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) against the order dated 21.7.2006 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 115 of 2000 (D.S. Mathur Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and another), whereby he has set aside the award dated 31.12.1999 passed by the Collector, Ghaziabad in Case No. 41/98-99 between Smt. Leela Mathur and U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd..
The facts of the case are that a plot no. D-107 Bulandshahr Road, Ghaziabad was allotted to Sri D.S. Mathur (hereinafter referred to as the allottee) on 15.7.1971. Certain conditions were contemplated in the allotment letter and the allottee applied for extension of time to complete the constructions, which was rejected by the Corporation on 29.8.1971. On 9.1.1973, a reminder was sent to the allottee regarding completion of construction and registration of a lease-deed. The lease-deed was executed on 3.7.1973 in favour of proprietor M/S Mason Mathur Engineering. On a report obtained by the Corporation it was found that the plot was being used for a purpose other than for which it was allotted and notice was given to such effect as also that the allottee is in default of the payment schedule. A recovery certificate was issued on 10.8.1976 for recovery of certain dues upon the allottee as arrears of land revenue and in default the Collector, Ghaziabad issued notice for auction sale of the plot. The Corporation alleges that it had sent several notices during the years 1975, 1976 and 1984 to the allottee at his address at Ghaziabad and also at his address at London (U.K.) but when no response was received the lease was forfeited and determined and re-entry by the Corporation was ordered. The Corporation alleges to have re-entered the plot on 24.2.1986 and subsequently it was allotted/transferred by the Corporation to some other persons and ultimately to one Sri Mohan Lal Arora, Proprietor M/S Gears (India) on 19.2.1992, which was followed by execution of a Registered lease-deed on 24.4.1992 in his favour.
The case of the Corporation is that on 4.3.1998 the wife of Sri D.S. Mathur namely Smt. Leela Mathur made an application for invoking the Arbitration Clause contained in the lease-deed. The Corporation claims to have appeared before the Arbitrator and filed their detail objections and the documents as evidence whereupon the Collector Ghaziabad/Arbitrator gave an award on 31.12.1999, wherein he rejected the application of Smt. Leela Mathur on the ground of limitation and maintainability.
An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by Smt. Leela Mathur as Attorney of the allottee Sri D.S. Mathur, which was registered in the Court of District Judge as Misc. Case No. 115 of 2000 (D.S. Mathur Vs. UPSIDC and others). The application was dismissed by the District Judge by an order dated 7.9.2000. The Corporation alleges that the allottee filed a review application to the award dated 31.12.1999 of the Collector Ghaziabad, which was dismissed on 7.8.2003. A Writ Petition No. 45731 of 2003 was filed by the allottee against the said order and for restoration of possession which was dismissed by the Writ Court on 26.8.2004 on the ground of statutory alternative remedy. It is alleged that the allottee filed a Civil Appeal No. 6985 of 2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order passed by the Writ Court which was disposed of with directions on 3.5.2006 and thereafter by the impugned order dated 21.7.2006 passed on the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the District Judge has set aside the award dated 31.12.1999 where against the Corporation has preferred this appeal.
Sri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding recorded by the District Judge in the impugned order on the issue of non-servi
AI
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
