Back
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, PRITINKER DIWAKER
Divine Conbuild Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's entitlement to road access and financial obligations. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. arguments of petitioner regarding zero period and approach road. (Para 4 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. court's observations on upsidc's failure to comply with lease terms. (Para 6 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. contention about lack of infrastructure affecting development. (Para 8) |
| 5. lease deed clauses and implications on access roads. (Para 20 , 22) |
| 6. critical importance of providing access roads to fulfill lease obligations. (Para 21) |
| 7. court sets aside previous decisions affirming petitioner's rights. (Para 24) |
| 8. final order granting relief to petitioner. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Abdhesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 & 3.
2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the development of residential and commercial projects and has filed the present writ petition, seeking inter-alia the following reliefs;
Developers are entitled to waivers and extensions when failure to provide essential infrastructure, such as access roads, obstructs project execution, affirming obligations under lease agreements.
The court held that the lessee is entitled to the provision of an approach road as stipulated in the lease deed, justifying waivers of interest and zero period until compliance by the lessor.
Courts will not interfere with the cancellation of an industrial lease by an authority when the lessee has failed to comply with mandatory time-bound construction and production covenants, as equitab....
Failure to comply with lease conditions justifies cancellation of the lease, emphasizing the necessity for timely establishment of operations by allottees under industrial development regulations.
The cancellation of a lease due to shareholding changes is unjustified when actual possession of leased land has not been delivered, invalidating claims for rents and penalties.
No party can benefit from its own wrong; UPSIDA cannot charge interest for delays caused by its own actions.
The lessee is not obligated to pay premium and interest until actual physical possession of the leased land is delivered to them, emphasizing the authority's duty to provide possession first.
Authority must deliver physical possession of land to the allottee; failure to do so grants the right to zero period benefits under lease agreements.
A party cannot be denied benefits due to issues beyond their control; zero period benefits were affirmed due to delays stemming from governmental actions.
Development authorities must adhere to mandatory conditions regarding possession certificates; failure to comply invalidates lease rent claims and CIC charges deemed illegal must be refunded.
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
