Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Legal Recourse for Appeal Against Lease Cancellation - A man who has a 26% share in a company affected by a lease cancellation can file an appeal or writ petition challenging the cancellation order by RIICO. Multiple cases indicate that lease cancellations by RIICO can be challenged through appeals under Rules 24(aa) and 24(bb)(ii), or via writ petitions in the High Court, especially if the cancellation was arbitrary or violated principles of natural justice. For instance, in ["Rajasthan State Industrial Development Appellants and Investment Corporation and Another v. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Another - Supreme Court"], the court restored the cancellation order, indicating that such orders are subject to judicial review if procedural or substantive irregularities are present.
Procedure and Grounds for Challenging Lease Cancellation - The primary avenues for challenging include filing review applications or appeals before the competent authority or appellate bodies within RIICO, as outlined in ["Rajasthan State Industrial Development Appellants and Investment Corporation and Another v. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Another - Supreme Court"]. The courts have set aside cancellation orders when procedural lapses or violations of natural justice occurred, as seen in ["Bashir Mohd. S/o Ibrahim VS Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited - Rajasthan"], where the court found the cancellation illegal due to lack of proper notice and service.
Shareholding and Legal Standing - The fact that the individual holds a 26% share in the company does not automatically preclude them from challenging lease cancellation orders. The courts focus on procedural fairness and legality of the order rather than the shareholder's percentage alone. Cases like ["Swadeshi Cement Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan through Secretary (Mines) - Rajasthan"] and ["Bashir Mohd. S/o Ibrahim VS Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited - Rajasthan"] show that shareholders or interested parties can seek relief if they demonstrate violations of legal procedures or arbitrariness.
Main Points and Insights:
Shareholding percentage (26%) does not bar a person from filing an appeal; their legal standing depends on the nature of the order and procedural fairness.
Conclusion: Yes, a man with a 26% share in a company can file an appeal or writ petition against the order of lease cancellation by RIICO, provided he demonstrates procedural lapses, arbitrariness, or violation of principles of natural justice in the cancellation process ["Swadeshi Cement Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan through Secretary (Mines) - Rajasthan"], ["Rajasthan State Industrial Development Appellants and Investment Corporation and Another v. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Another - Supreme Court"]. The legal remedies include appeals within RIICO or judicial review in the High Court.
References:["Swadeshi Cement Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan through Secretary (Mines) - Rajasthan"], ["Rajasthan State Industrial Development Appellants and Investment Corporation and Another v. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Another - Supreme Court"], ["Bashir Mohd. S/o Ibrahim VS Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited - Rajasthan"]
In the world of industrial development in Rajasthan, the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO) plays a pivotal role by allotting plots and leases to companies for setting up businesses. However, what happens when RIICO cancels a lease due to non-compliance, defaults, or other breaches? A common question arises: can a man who filed an appeal against the order of cancellation of lease by RIICO, who has 26% share in that company?
This scenario pits individual shareholder interests against corporate lease rights. While shareholders may feel personally impacted, the law typically distinguishes between company assets and personal stakes. This blog post dives deep into the legal nuances, drawing from key judgments and RIICO practices to clarify standing (locus standi) for such appeals. Note: This is general information based on case law and should not be taken as specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
RIICO leases industrial plots under specific rules, such as the RIICO Disposal of Property Rules, 1979. Cancellation often occurs for reasons like failure to commence operations within time limits, non-payment of dues, or sub-letting without permission. Once cancelled, affected parties may seek remedies like internal appeals to RIICO's Chairman or Managing Director, revisions, or writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Devi Sahai Mittal VS Sita Ram Agarwal - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 2299
For instance, in one case, a plaintiff appealed a 1996 cancellation by RIICO before the Competent Authority under the 1979 Rules, but the appeal was dismissed. Devi Sahai Mittal VS Sita Ram Agarwal - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 2299 This highlights that appeals are not automatic and depend on who files them.
Main Legal Finding: A person holding a 26% share in a company that has a lease with RIICO generally does not have the legal standing to directly file an appeal against the order of cancellation unless they have a specific legal or contractual right or interest recognized by law. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation VS Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 147
Several judgments reinforce that shareholders cannot independently appeal without more:
Other cases show who can appeal:- Resolution Professionals and Official Liquidators: In Elica Hospitality LLP VS Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation through its Managing Director, the Resolution Professional appealed a cancellation before RIICO's Managing Director, but it was against an allotment letter cancellation. Similarly, Mr. Amit Jain Resolution Professional of Neesa Leisure Limited VS Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation notes an appeal by ACRE dismissed by Chairman RIICO. Official Liquidator - Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. VS Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited - 2010 Supreme(Raj) 1546 involved an Official Liquidator challenging post-winding-up cancellations, but courts upheld RIICO's prior actions since time was of the essence in leases.- Company-Level Appeals:Devi Sahai Mittal VS Sita Ram Agarwal - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 2299 describes a proprietor-turned-shareholder scenario where delay and laches barred relief after lease re-issuance to a new company.
In OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR vs RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL, orders of cancellation dated 26/04/1995 were assailed, underscoring procedural timelines. Matsya Jeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Thru. Presd. Vinay Kumar VS State Of U. P. Thru. Secy. Fisheries - 2021 Supreme(All) 716 (though U.P.-specific) notes no appeal lies against certain cancellations under revenue rules, subject only to revision—analogous to RIICO's structure.
While rare, exceptions exist:- If Shareholder is a Party to the Lease: Signatories or those with explicit contractual rights can appeal. Bashir Mohd. VS Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd.- Direct Legal or Statutory Interest: If lease documents or statutes (e.g., partnership conversions) grant rights. In Devi Sahai Mittal VS Sita Ram Agarwal - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 2299, a former partner with 10% profit share sought cancellation of a new lease deed but failed due to 20-year delay (laches).- Corporate Insolvency Contexts: During winding-up, Official Liquidators may intervene, but pre-winding-up cancellations stand if unchallenged. Official Liquidator - Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. VS Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited - 2010 Supreme(Raj) 1546 directed handover of plots to RIICO, as the company never appealed timely.- Natural Justice Violations: If cancellation lacked notice, appeals or writs may succeed on procedural grounds. Bashir Mohd. VS Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. argued RIICO violated natural justice by cancelling without service, calling it illegal and arbitrary.
Manohar Patel. R VS Union Of India Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways New Delhi, Rep. By Its Secretary - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 242 stresses following prescribed procedures for challenges.
For a 26% shareholder:- Verify Documents: Check if you're a lease party or have sub-lease/contractual rights.- Company Action First: The company should lead appeals; shareholders can push via board resolutions or derivative suits.- Timelines Critical: Delays invoke laches, as in Devi Sahai Mittal VS Sita Ram Agarwal - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 2299 (20 years barred relief) or R. T. Udyog Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan - 2002 Supreme(Raj) 351 (8 years post-sale too late).- Alternative Remedies: Writs to High Court, but only with strong standing. Ram Niwas Sharma VS State of M. P. - 2014 Supreme(MP) 90 saw appeals and revisions dismissed on merits.
Recommendations:1. Consult legal counsel to review lease, share agreements, and RIICO orders.2. Establish direct interest for valid appeal.3. Act swiftly—delays defeat claims.
RIICO lease issues demand precision. By understanding standing rules, shareholders can navigate better—often through company channels. For tailored guidance, reach out to a Rajasthan High Court practitioner familiar with industrial laws.
Disclaimer: This post summarizes general principles from cited cases Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation VS Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 147, Arfat Petrochemicals Private Limited VS State Of Rajasthan - 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 653, State of Jharkhand VS Tata Cumins LTD. - 2006 3 Supreme 239, Manohar Patel. R VS Union Of India Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways New Delhi, Rep. By Its Secretary - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 242, and others. It is not legal advice. Outcomes vary by facts.
#RIICOLease, #ShareholderAppeal, #LegalStanding
That apart, we find that even though the Central Government had set aside the order of cancellation of lease, which was earlier granted in favour of RIICO vide its order dated 08.01.1993, while reviving the lease of RIICO, it was limited to the need or requirement of the appellant-Company vide order ... The first submission is that the common order dated 09.07.1985 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in thr....
The respondent - company filed another Writ Petition No. 105 of 1997, challenging the cancellation order dated 1.10.1996 and the taking over of possession by the appellant on 3.10.1996. ... Such an order of cancellation could have been challenged by filing a review application before the competent authority under R.24 (aa) and, in the alternative, the respondent - company could have preferred an appeal under R.24(bb)(ii) before Infrastructure Develo....
The ACRE had filed appeal against cancellation of allotment land before the Chairman of RIICO which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2021. ... On perusal of the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by Managing Director in an appeal filed by Resolution Professional it is found that the appeal was filed against the cancellation of allotment letter dated 15.05.2020 of a plot situated at....
The ACRE had filed appeal against cancellation of allotment land before the Chairman of RIICO which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2021. ... On perusal of the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by Managing Director in an appeal filed by Resolution Professional it is found that the appeal was filed against the cancellation of allotment letter dated 15.05.2020 of a plot situated at....
According to the Respondent No. 1-plaintiff, the Respondent No. 2-RIICO on 26.8.96 had illegally cancelled the lease deed originally issued in his favour and hence the plaintiff had filed an appeal before the Competent Authority under RIICO Disposal of Property Rules, 1979, which appeal was dismissed ... The RIICO accordingly issued amended lease deed in favour of the Defendant No. 4 Company. ... The short facts g....
it had been improbable for the debtor company to perform its obligations under the term loan agreement executed with RIICO. ... other dues to pay Rs.74 lacs towards principal & 7.92 lacs interest (calculated upto 15.1.1993 @ 19.25% p.a.) otherwise the RIICO shall take over manage- ment or possession or both of Industrial unit so as to release its dues by sale/lease of the mortgaged assets hypothecated to it (RIICO) in security ... Undisputably, notwithstanding protest by letter (Ann.2) by RT Udyog, its ....
Only question for consideration is as to whether the applicant-OL is justified in assailing orders of cancellation impugned herein having been passed by respondent-RIICO on 26/04/95 much before the order 24/08/2001 for winding up the lessee Company was passed; and whether action of respondent-RIICO ... After written statement was filed by respondent-RIICO, this Court framed following issues vide order dated 21/06/2006 -"1. ... win....
dt.26/04/95 were passed. ... of cancellation dt. ... of cancellation impugned. ... 26/04/1995 and the lessee-Co. ... NR Choudhary, for respondent-RIICO.
The DB Special Appeal filed against the said order of cancelled the lease deed originally had also filed an application under Order company. ... The RIICO therefore executed a fresh lease deed for the plot p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0
The DB Special Appeal filed against the said order of cancelled the lease deed originally had also filed an application under Order company. ... The RIICO therefore executed a fresh lease deed for the plot p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0
But at this stage, in the applications under consideration, this Court does not find it necessary to decide the rights of the RIICO; however, the RIICO can continue to pursue its case on merits before DRAT subject of course to the final outcome of the company petitions. This Court also took note of the submissions made at length by Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, leaned counsel for the RIICO, who vehemently submitted that the RIICO has cancelled the original lease of the respondent-Company in respect of the land in question for default, and thus, once the lease itself has gone, then the aucti....
5. No appeal lies against an order of cancellation of such lease under Rule 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and the appeal prescribed therein is only against the grant of such lease and it is to be filed within 30 days from the date of approval of such lease by the Sub Divisional Officer. Any order passed in appeal under Rule 59 is subject to the revisional powers under Section 210. There is no mention of any appeal against an order of cancellation of lease under Rule 57 (14) of the Rules, 2016.
It is a settled law that the instrumentality of State is required to act in a just and fair manner. Learned counsel further argued that both the Courts below have committed an error in considering the fact that the show cause notice/cancellation order was never served upon the plaintiff. Thus, the order of cancellation of the lease deed is absolutely contrary to the principle of natural justice and the same is illegal and arbitrary. In the present case, the RIICO straight away passed an order of cancellation of the lease deed behind the back of the plaintiff in violation of the pri....
Thus, the order of cancellation of the lease deed is absolutely contrary to the principle of natural justice and the same is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel further argued that both the Courts below have committed an error in considering the fact that the show cause notice/cancellation order was never served upon the plaintiff. It is a settled law that the instrumentality of State is required to act in a just and fair manner. In the present case, the RIICO straight away passed an order of cancellation of the lease deed behind the back of the plaintiff in violation of the pri....
The appellate authority vide order dated 29.6.2013 dismissed the appeal on the ground that a Special Leave Petition was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Writ Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file the petition subsequently because an appeal was pending before the Government. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of cancellation of lease. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the State Government, that was also dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2013 on the ground that the enquiry committee in its report recorded findings that the petitioner had ....
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
