RUPA & CO LTD & ANR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Rupa And Co Ltd And Anr
State Of West Bengal And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
Debangsu Basak, J. -
(1.) The petitioners have assailed the decision of cancellation of allotment taken in the 67th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 2 held on July 30, 2012. They have also challenged the letter dated August 24, 2012 issued by the General Manager (Marketing) - I of the respondent no. 2.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the petitioner was allotted a plot of land for the purpose of establishing a modern showroom/commercial unit in the action area IIE of Jyoti Basu Nagar (erstwhile New Town), Kolkata. The decision to allot such plot was taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 2 in its 56th Meeting held on December 21, 2010. The first petitioner was allotted 10 cottahs of the land at such area. In its 57th Meeting, the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 2 decided to allot 30 cottahs of land to the first petitioner. The respondent no. 2 allotted 30 cottahs of land bearing Plot No. IIE/17 within action area IIE of Jyoti Basu Nagar (erstwhile New Town), Kolkata on freehold basis at the price of Rs. 4,00,92,000/-. The petitioners paid the entire amount of Rs. 4,00,92,000. Subsequent to the payment of the entire consideration, a joint measurement was undertaken. Subsequently, by the impugned writing dated August 24, 2012, the respondent no. 2 purported to contend that, the policy decision of the respondent no. 2 had allegedly underwent a change. The respondent no. 2 was no longer willing to execute a deed for sale of the land on freehold basis. The respondent no. 2 was willing to grant a long-term lease in respect of the plot. The petitioner had protested against the same.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, a concluded contract came into being between first petitioner and the respondent no. 2 with regard to 30 cottahs plot of land. He has submitted that, the petitioner had discharged all its obligations under such contract. The respondent no. 2 is obliged to execute a deed of conveyance in respect of such plot of land on freehold basis. The subsequent change in policy, cannot override the concluded contract. A party to the contract cannot be allowed to alter the essential terms of the contract unilaterally. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Vodafone ESSAR Gujarat Ltd., 2016 16 SCC 1).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.