HINDUSTAN TEXKNIT PVT LTD Vs. STATE UF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2013-11-59
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 25,2013

Hindustan Texknit Pvt Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
State Uf U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioner before this Court seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the Greater NOIDA to immediately arrange for repossession of industrial plot no. 10, Udyog Kendra Industrial Area, Greater NOIDA to the petitioner and to not to charge lease rent of plot no. 10 from 17.02.2003, the date on which the authority cancelled the allotment of the plot till the date of repossession of the industrial plot and not to demand additional premium @ 4%, 6% and 8% for extension of time to make the industry functional in view of the new industrial policy of 2001 as the plot in question was allotted in the year 1997.
(2.) Facts in short leading to the present petition are as follows : On an application made by the petitioner company for establishing an industrial unit in Greater NOIDA, the Greater NOIDA authorities issued a letter allotting industrial plot no. 10 in Udyog Kendra Industrial Area for manufacture of knitted fabric from yarn. The total amount of the premium provisionally worked out for the said plot was Rs.67,98,416/-. The petitioner was required to deposit 33,99,208/- towards allotment money by 02.12.1997, after adjustment of the registration money and the balance amount was payable in half yearly installments with 18% interest. The payment schedule was also enclosed (Ref. Page 36 of the paper book) which provided for payment of the installment, the last being payable on 31.12.2002. In pursuance to the allotment letter the petitioner is stated to have deposited the amount and accordingly a lease deed was executed by the Greater NOIDA authorities on 08.10.1997 in favour of the petitioner for a period of 98 years, a copy of the lease deed is at page 48 of the paper book.
(3.) Amongst other it was specifically provided as condition no. 4 in the lease deed that the petitioner shall complete the construction of factory building and make the unit functional with a period of 36 months or within such extended time as may be allowed by the lessor in writing in its discretion on the request of the lessee. The lessor shall obtain completion certificate from lessor within due period. Clause 9(1) of the lease deed permitted transfer, subletting, relinquishment, mortgage or assignment in interest in the demised premises or the building constructed thereon or both provided that no transfer shall be allowed/permitted in respect of a unit where a functional certificate has not been obtained. Clause 10(d) of the lease deed provided that in case the lessee fails to commence and also complete the construction of the building upon the demised premises in accordance with and within the time schedule provided for the said purpose in Clause III (4). It shall be lawful for the lessor without prejudice to any other legal rights or remedies available under law to re-enter the demised premises or any part thereof and thereafter this lease shall stand determined. Condition of forfeiture of premium etc. have also been provided for under the lease deed. Proviso to clause 10 further provided that right to determine the lease deed for breach of the conditions mentioned in the clause shall not be exercised if the industry on the demise premises has been financed by the Corporations mentioned in the clause including PICUP unless 30 days prior notice is given to such financing body.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.