HYDERABAD SHEET METAL AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES Vs. INDUSTRIAL PACKAGES
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HYDERABAD SHEET METAL AND ALLIED, INDUSTRIES
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The Award dated 4-6-1988 passed by the 3rd respondent acting as Arbitator under Section 62 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') has been question in this writ petition. By that Award, the Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad (2nd respondent herein) was directed to take over the plot of 6,000 sq.ft. in B-l unit which was in possession and enjoyment of the first respondent since 7-8-1979 and to allot the same to the 1st respondent under Clause 24 of the deed of Agreement of lease-cum-sale.
(2.)The relevant facts are these : The petitioner herein, M/s. Hyderabad Sheet Metal & Allied Industries was allotted plot No. B-l of an extent of 2620 sq. meters in the Co-operative Industrial Estate, Balanagarfor the establishment of its factory under a deed of agreement of lease-cum-sale dated 19-6-1973. After setting up its factory, the petitioner let out a portion of the said plot admeasuring 6000 sq. ft. to the 1st respondent under a lease-deed dated 15-9-1979 for a period of three years. On 1-2-1983, it appears, there was an extension of lease. The 1st respondent became an associate member of the Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. in the year 1983. Thereafter, a Tripartite agreement was entered into between the Co-operative Industrial Estate (R2) M/s. Hyderabad Sheet Metal & Allied Industies (petitioner) and M/s. Industrial Packages (Rl). It is stated in that agreement that the petitioner leased out with the approval of the 2nd respondent a portion of the Unit to the 1st respondent on a rent of Rs. 700/ - per month to run a registered small scale industry for a period of eleven months commencing from 1-2-1983. It was stipulated in that agreement that the petitioner and the 1st respondent shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to the 2nd respondent servicing charges at 2 1/2% of rent per month subject to a minimum of Rs. 25.00 per month. R1 undertook to pay the monthly rent to the Industrial Estate in case the petitioner defaults in the payment of rent to the Industrial Estate. It appears that in or about the year 1985, the petitioner called upon R1 to hand over the possession of the plot and on her refusal to do so, there has. been civil litigation between the parties. It is not relevant to refer to those details. R1 became full-fledged member of the Co-operative Industrial Estate on 19-9-1987. It appears from the material papers filed by the Counsel for R1 that R1 filed an application before R2 on 9-10-1987 for the allotment of plot of 6000 sq. ft. which was in her possession. A few days thereafter, Rl submitted a represenlation on 16-10-1987 to the Commissioner of Industries. The contents of this representation are not known. However, on the basis of this representation, the Commissioner of Industries, by his communication dated 21-10-1987, advised Rl to file an arbitration case against the petitioner under Section 61 of the Act before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Rangareddy District/ Registrar of the District and obtain an interlocutory order under S. 62(4) of the Act against any dislocation of the unit. On the same day, the Commissioner of Industries addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd. While referring to the representation of Rl, the Commissioner requested the Chairman to take necessary action to see that no disturbance or dislocation was caused to the Industrial Unit of R1 'till her case is disposed of by the Government.' A day earlier, Rl filed an arbitration petition before the General Manager, District Industrial Centre (R4) under Section 61 of the Act. By proceedings dated 19-1-1988, R4 appointed Sri G. V. Raghavaiah, Manager (VI & T) District Industries Centre, R. R. District (R3) in purported exercise of power under Section 62 (1)(c) of the Act. R3 issued a notice on 29-1-1988 calling upon the petitioner and R2 to file counters together with supporting documents on or before 8-2-1988. The first hearing was fixed on 12-2-1988. After hearing the parties, the impugned Award was passed on 4-6-1988. In the Award, the 3rd respondent observed that the petitioner allowed three other industrial units to come up in B-1 plot allotted to him contrary to the objects of the Cooperative Industrial Estate and the provisions of the Agreement of lease-cum-sale. The Arbitrator commented that R2 should not have permitted the petitioner to provide accommodation to three associate members to establish their units in the plot. The Tripartite agreement was held to be illegal on the ground that the petitioner did not have any transferable leasehold right over B-1 unit. In the penaltimate para, the Arbitrator observed :
"M/s. Industrial Packages who has been in possession and enjoyment of 6000 sq. feet plot in B-1 unit allotted to Respondent No.1 through the illegal lease deed executed on 15-9-1979 without the knowledge of Respondent No. 2 and the Tripartite agreement, from 1-2-83 to date with the approval of Respondent No. 2 and who is successfully running her industrial unit and regularly paying the service and water charges to Respondent No. 2, having power connection in the name of Industrial Packages, having paid the non-agricultural tax to the revenue authorities for the portion of 6000 sq. ft. occupied by her, obtained the Gram Pan-chayat licence and Sales-Tax authorities for the unit in B-l plot, should be treated on par with any other member who is allotted a plot in the C.I.E."
Ultimately, he gave the following direction :
"The Co-op. Industrial Estate, Balanagar is hereby directed to take over the plot of 6000 sq. ft. of land in B-l unit that was in possession and enjoyment of M/s. Industrial Packages from 1-8-1979 to date as per Cl. 14 of the Deed of Agreement of lease-cum-sale for the reasons mentioned above and allot the same to M/s. Industrial Packages under Cl. 24 of the Deed of Agreement of lease-cum-sale to meet the demands of justice and fair play."
The Award of the Arbitrator is challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on various grounds. The learned Counsel contended that the Award in question was passed beyond the time prescribed by the Registrar and hence it is a nullity. It is contended that the provisions of the Arbitration Act equally applies to arbitration under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. I am not inclined to entertain this objection for the reasons that never before, the petitioner raised this objection. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the proceedings even after the expiry of time limit, without any demur. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this contention has not been raised.
(3.)The learned Counsel for the petitioner then contended that there was no dispute as between R1 and R2 with regard to allotment of plot in question which could be taken cognizance of under Section 61 of the Act. As a corollary thereto, it is submitted that the direction to the Society to take over 6000 sq. ft. of land in B-1 unit and to allot the same to Rl, is without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the direction given in the Award to R2 to allot the particular plot of land to R1 is beyond the scope of authority of R3 as an Arbitrator. I see force in these contentions of the learned Counsel.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.