SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 43571

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J
Cardamom Products (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.3035 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.2426 of 2021



Advocates:
Mr.Niranjan S. Kumar, Mr.S.Jeya Singh, Senior Panel Counsel, for R1; Mr.R.Murali, for Mr.K.Govindarajan, for R2

A statutory body must fulfill its contractual obligations; failure to do so entitles the petitioner to a full refund, and writ petitions concerning contractual disputes with state instrumentalities are maintainable.

Headnote:(A) Spices Board Act, 1986 - Writ Petition against order dated 11.01.2021 - Petitioner sought refund of Rs.20,10,000/- for cancellation of allotment of plots at Spices Park - The Board failed to fulfill contractual obligations, causing delays in project commencement. (Paras 1, 5, 12, 14)

(B) Contractual Obligations - The statutory body must adhere to its commitments; failure to do so entitles the petitioner to a full refund. (Paras 6, 17)

(C) Maintainability of Writ Petition - Writ petitions concerning contractual disputes with state instrumentalities are maintainable under certain circumstances. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was allotted plots for establishing a spice processing unit but faced delays due to the Board's failure to provide approved plots and infrastructure, leading to a show cause notice for breach of contract. (Paras 4, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court found the Board at fault for not providing necessary approvals and infrastructure, thus the petitioner is entitled to a full refund of the amount paid. (Paras 17, 21)

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner is entitled to a full refund and the maintainability of the writ petition concerning contractual disputes. (Paras 14, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory body’s failure to comply with its obligations justified the petitioner’s claim for a full refund, and the writ petition was maintainable. (Paras 20, 21)

Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned order quashed, directing full refund of the amount paid.

Table of Content
1. details of payments and allotments (Para 4)
2. petitioner's contention on delays (Para 5 , 6)
3. second respondent's defense (Para 7)
4. court's observation on delays (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. court's view on statutory obligations (Para 12)
6. court's ruling on refund entitlement (Para 17)
7. writ petition outcome (Para 21)

ORDER

This Writ Petition is directed against the order, dated 11.01.2021 passed by the second respondent in No. KMT/SP/SVG/LOP/SCN/01/2020-21 and for direction to the second respondent to return the entire amount of Rs.20,10,000/- paid by the petitioner together with interest in lieu of cancellation of allotment/registration of plots Nos.33, 34, 35 and 36 at Spices Park, Sivagangai District.

2. The Spices Board, constituted under the Spices Board Act , 1986 is a statutory Commodity Board functioning under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. It is an autonomous body responsible for the export promotion of 52 scheduled spices and development of Cardamom (small and large). The Board is an international link between the Indian exporters and the importers abroad and is an exclusive board to promote, monitor and to develop the production of spices in India and to facilitate the import activities to abroad.

3. It is not in dispute that as requested by the board, the Tamil Nadu Government has allotted an extent of 75 acres of land in Kottagudi Village in Sivagangai District for establishing Spices Park and out of total extent of 75 acres of land, 25 acres of land were utilized by the Board for constructing common infrastructure facilities including road, drains and uninterrupted power and water supply, canteen etc., and the remaining land was demarcated into plots for leasing out to exporters of spices for establishing their own spice processing units in the park and that the Board had invited Expression of Interest (EoI) from prospective investors for establishing Spice processing units in the Spices Park.

4. The factual aspects not in dispute are :

(i) - The petitioner company sent EOI to the second respondent in respect of three plots in Plot Nos.33, 34 and 35.

(ii) 14.03.2012 Allotment order was given by the second respondent, allotting the Plot Nos.33, 34 and 35 to the petitioner demanding payment of Rs.13,43,000/- to be payable on or before 18.04.2012.

(iii) 04.06.2012 The petitioner company requested extension of time for payment. The second respondent has extended the time for making payments by three months.

(iv) 16.08.2012 Entire payment was made by the petitioner company.

(v) 06.10.2013 Spices Park at Sivagangai was inaugurated.

(vi) - The petitioner company has requested to allot one more plot No.36.

(vii) 16.09.2013 Expression of interest was given by the petitioner for Plot No.36 along with payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,000/-

(viii) 23.09.2013 The second respondent directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.70,140/- being the balance amount to process the allotment of Plot No.36.

(ix) 01.10.2013 Payment of Rs.70,140/- as demanded by the second respondent was paid.

(x) 20.05.2014 Unregistered lease deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner.

(xi) 24.05.2014 Communication sent by the petitioner, after signing the unregistered lease deed and returning the same to the second respondent.

(xii) 28.06.2014 Communication sent by the second respondent in respect of registration of lease deed.

(xiii) 19.11.2014 Lease deed was registered in Document No.4948/2014.

(xiv) 11.04.2015 Invitation sent by the petitioner to the second respondent for Boomi Pooja scheduled on 23.04.2015 and requesting them to provide water facility for construction.

(xv) 04.06.2015 No objection certificate issued by the Fire and Safety Department, Sivagangai.

(xvi) 12.02.2020 Communication sent by the second respondent stating that the DTCP approval was granted on 19.07.2019.

(xvii) 08.07.2020 Show cause notice issued by the second respondent to the petitioner as to why the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top