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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1620

Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, N.V. Anjaria, JJ
Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1944 OF 2011



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amar Dave, Tarun Gulati
For the Respondents: A.N.S. Nadkarni

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 equitable relief is unavailable to parties whose conduct is characterized by persistent contractual non-compliance.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Law - Lease Deed - Cancellation of allotment - Failure to commence construction and production within stipulated time - Breach of covenants - Allottee failed to adhere to mandatory conditions regarding time-bound project implementation - Authority's power to determine lease for non-utilization of land. (Paras 3, 59, 60)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - Court will not substitute its discretion for that of the authority in commercial decisions - Equitable relief not available to litigants with callous conduct and persistent failure to comply with contractual obligations. (Paras 77, 78)

Facts of the case:
An industrial plot was allotted to an entity, which was later transferred to the appellant. The lease deed mandated construction and commencement of production within a specific timeframe. The appellant failed to meet these requirements, citing internal operational pressures. Despite multiple notices and opportunities to rectify the breach, the appellant failed to submit the required documentation in the prescribed format or adhere to the time-bound schedule, leading to the cancellation of the lease.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intent to establish the industrial unit over several years. The appellant's failure to comply with the specific conditions of the lease and the subsequent notices justified the cancellation.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the lease was arbitrary and whether the court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore the allotment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lessee is bound by the terms of the lease deed. Where a party fails to comply with mandatory conditions for industrial use, the authority is empowered to cancel the lease. The court will not interfere with such commercial decisions unless they are perverse or illegal, and equitable relief is denied to parties who have acted in breach of their contractual obligations.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and interim litigation status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, M/s. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.1, for assailing the judgment and order dated 15th October, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court2 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.47482 of 2008 whereby, the aforesaid petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred by the appellant- company was dismissed, thereby affirming the order dated 25th August, 2008 passed by the Joint Signature Not Verified

1 Formerly known as M/s. Piaggio (India) Pvt. Ltd. Hereinafter, referred to

SHIPRA NARANG as “appellant-company”.

Date: 2026.04.06

Reason: 2 Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.

Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (now Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority)3.

3. By order dated 25th August, 2008, UPSIDA forfeited the lease of Plot No. A-1, Site-B, admeasuring 33 acres at Surajpur Industrial Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh which had been granted under lease deeds dated 19th March, 2002 and 10th July, 2007. The former lease deed was executed in favour of M/s. Piaggio India (P) Ltd., while the latter was executed in the name of the amalgamated entity, M/s. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. i.e., the appellant-company. The forfeiture was on account of breach of terms and conditions stipulated under sub-clauses (e) and (o) of Clause 3 read with Clause 5 of the lease deed i.e., for failing to complete construction of the factory building within the stipulated period or the extended time permitted thereunder. By the very same order, UPSIDA also 3 UPSIDA was formerly known as the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). UPSIDC was merged into and reconstituted as UPSIDA pursuant to the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Ordinance, 2018 (promulgated on 27.06.2018), and the subsequent UPSIDC Limited (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Act, 2018 (enacted on

10.09.2018). Hereinafter, referred to as “UPSIDA”.

notified its intent to re-enter the plot and to forfeit the premium paid by the appellant-company.

4. Before we delve into the factual and legal aspects of the matter, it would be apposite to refer to the proceedings which transpired after the order of forfeiture.

5. The High Court, vide order dated 12th September, 2008 passed in the captioned writ petition, directed the parties to maintain status quo, which continued till the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant-company approached this Court by way of this appeal by special leave, and the interim protection was extended vide order dated 27th October, 2009. The stay order was further modified on 6th November, 2009, restraining the respondents from taking possession of the subject plot. Leave in the matter was granted on 8th February, 2011.

7. During the pendency of the civil appeal, the appellant-company approached the concerned authorities for a settlement but the same did not fructify. Again, on 17th January, 2017, this Court directed the Managing Director, UPSIDA, to deliberate upon the possibility of an amicable settlement. The appellant-company was granted liberty to make a representation to the Managing Director, UPSIDA, for attempting a settlement which ultimately did not materialise.

8. On 6th March, 2024, considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel representing the appellant-company, this Court passed the following order:-

“Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, makes the following submissions:

(1) That the total outstanding dues as communicated by the Regional Manager of Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (for short, “UPSIDA”) was Rs.10,95,52,825/-, which amount the appellant is ready and willing to depos

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