W.P.(C) 7456/2013

Page 1 of 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 09.05.2019

+

W.P.(C) 7456/2013

M/S GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner

:

Mr.

Abhinav

Vashisht,

Senior

Advoctewith Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi,

Mr.Satvik Verma, Mr. Tanveer Oberoi,

Ms. Priya Singh and Ms.Hamneet Kaur,

Advocates.

For the Respondent

: Mr. Ajay Verma, SSC-DDA with Mr.Sumit

Mishra and Mr. Ishaan Verma, Advocates.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia,

impugning the demand of unearned increase for a sum of

₹34,24,27,979/-, made by the respondent (hereafter „DDA‟) in terms

of its letter dated 15.04.2013 read with letters dated 14.05.2013 and

13.01.2015. The petitioner also seeks a refund for an amount

of₹3,94,57,027/-, which was paid by the petitioner to DDA in terms of

the order dated 19.01.2011 passed in W.P.(C) 344/2011. In addition,

the petitioner has also sought refund for certain other sums paid to

2019:DHC:2552

W.P.(C) 7456/2013

Page 2 of 17

DDA, in connection with the property bearing the address Plot No. E-

31, admeasuring 9715.75 square yards, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase

II, New Delhi (hereafter “the subject property”).

2.

The principal controversy in the present case relates to the levy

of unearned increase in respect of the subject property. DDA claims

that the subject property was transferred in the year 2005-06, as there

was a material change in the shareholding of the petitioner. According

to DDA, the said change in shareholding brought about the change in

the effective control in the subject property, which is construed as a

transfer,thereby entitling DDA to levy unearned increase. The

petitioner disputes the above and contends that change in the

shareholding cannot be construed as a transfer of the subject property.

Factual Background

3.

M/s Sharpedge Limited (hereafter „Sharpedge‟), a Company

incorporated in India,acquired the subject property on 11.06.1974 in

an auction conducted by DDA.

4.

Sharpedge constructed an industrial building on the subject

property after obtaining the necessary approvals of the building plans.

Subsequently on 05.07.1978, a perpetual lease deed in respect of the

subject property was registered in favour of Sharpedge.

5.

On 09.02.1984, the petitioner – then known as Indian Shaving

Products Limited (ISPL) – acquired the entire shareholding of

Sharpedge.

Consequently,

Sharpedgebecamea

wholly

owned

subsidiary of ISPL.

2019:DHC:2552

W.P.(C) 7456/2013

Page 3 of 17

6.

On 09.08.1989, the Board of Industrial and Financial

Reconstruction (BIFR) declared Sharpedgeas a sick company within

the meaning of Section 3(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special

Provisions) Act, 1985.

7.

During the course of the proceedings before the BIFR, the

operating

agency

prepared

a

scheme

for

rehabilitation

of

Sharpedge,which entailed its amalgamation withISPL (the petitioner

company). The aforesaid scheme (entailing amalgamation of

Sharpedge with the petitioner) was sanctioned by the BIFR on

23.04.1992. As a consequence of the said Scheme, the assets of

Sharpedge, including the subject property and the building constructed

thereon, vested with the petitioner. Accordingly on 15.05.1992, the

petitioner requested DDA to effect the change in its records.

8.

In view of the transfer of the subject property from Sharpedge

to the petitioner, DDA issued a demand notice dated 29.08.1995,

calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹5,37,95,788/- as unearned

increase alongwith interest thereon.

9.

The petitioner contested the aforesaid demand as according to

it, unearned increase was not payable on account of transfer of any

property pursuant to the rehabilitation scheme approved by BIF