AMAN SEMI-CONDUCTORS (PVT.) LTD versus HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 27-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 130
130
AMAN SEMI-CONDUCTORS (PVT.) LTD
v.
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 572-573 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 27, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection – Industrial plot was alloted in favour
of the appellant by respondent-Corporation – However, the
allotment was cancelled and the respondent resumed the plot stating
that the appellant was not serious in implementing the proposed
project and that the plot was lying vacant – Justification of – Held:
The idea behind development of industrial plots and allotting them
to deserving applicants is to act as a catalyst to promote economic
growth – In the present case, the development of industrial areas
was part of the State’s overall project for promoting industries and
growth of its economy with the objective of providing livelihood –
Agreement entered into between the respondent and the appellant
stipulated that the allottee would enjoy the right of possession as
long as he complied with all terms and conditions of allotment
contained in the agreement – The stipulation in the allotment letter
requiring allottees to construct their respective projects and start it,
was essential – However, the appellant was always insincere and
perhaps never intended to follow up and set up the industrial project,
which he proposed to the respondent, as the basis for allotment of
his plot – Impugned order of NCDRC holding that the respondent
was justified in resuming the plot does not call for interference.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The allotment made in favour of the appellant
by HSIDC contains several conditions. The HSIDC and the
appellant entered into an agreement. Clause 4 (iii) of the
agreement stipulates that the allottee would enjoy the right of
possession as long as he complied with all terms and conditions
of allotment contained in the agreement. Besides this, there were
other mandatory stipulations. The development of industrial areas,
was part of the state’s overall project for promoting industries
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
131
and growth of its economy, with the objective of providing
livelihood. The HSIDC therefore, correctly contends that the
stipulation in the allotment letter, requiring allottees to construct
their respective projects and start it, was essential. The appellant
too had furnished a project report, proposing to set up an FM
radio and audio component manufacturing unit. This project was
appraised, he was interviewed and after satisfying itself about its
feasibility, HSIDC allotted the plot. There is no denial of the fact
that the allottee did not take any step towards setting up the unit
he proposed. His pleading, before the District Consumer Forum,
was that the infrastructural facilities, such as road and external
development had not come up. He claims to have applied for
electricity connection. On the other hand, there is nothing on
the record- even till date- pointing to any plan to construct a
factory or industrial unit. He did not supply any plans for approval;
nor did he ever show inclination to procure the needed machinery
and equipment required for his proposed industrial unit. Other
steps such as securing tax registration, etc., too were not shown
to have been done. Thus, the appellant was always insincere and
perhaps never intended to follow up and set up the industrial
project, which he proposed to HSIDC, as the basis for allotment
of his plot. [Paras 16-18][137-E; 138-E,G-H; 138-A-C]
Indu Kakkad v. Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd 1999 (2) SCC 37 : [1998] 3 Suppl.
SCR 277– referred to.
1.2 The idea behind development of industrial plots and
allotting them to deserving applicants is to act as a catalyst to
promote economic growth. In the present case, the facts are
stark; the appellant never made any genuine effort to start its
unit. There is no material to disclose that upon receipt of no less
than three show cause notices, the appellant showed any sense
of urgency in taking steps to live up to the bargain, (of setting up
an industrial unit). The inference which this court is left to draw,
is that the allottee’s intention was perhaps never to set up any
industrial unit, despite its promise to the contrary, and
speculatively deal with the plot. Having regard to these facts and
circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the impugned order
does not call for interference. In 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.