ESTATE OFFICER UT CHANDIGARH & ORS. versus M/S. ESYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 11-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 682 
ESTATE OFFICER UT CHANDIGARH & ORS. 
v. 
MIS. ESYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3765 of2016) 
MAY 11,2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.) 
Allotment of Small Campus Site in Chandigarh Information 
Services Park Rules, 2002:·r.9-Resumption of plot- In the instant 
C case, respondent was allotted 6 acres of land - Allotment letter 
imposed condition to make construction within period of 3 years -
Transfer of major portion of shares by respondent to another 
company without informing the appellant or seeking necessary 
permission. - Resumption of plot by estate officer - Challenge against 
- Held: Respondent suppressed the fact of transfer - lnspite of 
D clear direction of Supreme Court to disclose full facts in the counter 
affidavit, respondent concealed the said fact and thus did not come 
with clean hands - There was violation of r.9 and clause 15 of 
allotment letter - Resumption of plot by appellant was legal and 
proper. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
In spite of the clear direction made by this Conrt, 
the respondent bas suppressed the facts with respect. to its. deal 
with Mis. Teledata Ltd. There is concealment of material facts 
by the respondent in spite of having been directed to disclose 
F the full facts in the counter affidavit. It is apparent from th_e affidavit 
of Mr. Vikas Goel that in order to raise the fund to pay to its 
creditors, Mis. Esys Singapore considered its option to raise it 
through the sale of its assets and snbsidiaries and Mis. Esys 
Global Holding Ltd. was prepared to buy subsidiaries inclnding 
Mis. Esys India based on book value. It has been mentioned· in 
G · j>ara 17 that sale of its subsidiaries to Mis. Esys Global Holding 
meant that tbtse liabilities were transferred to the buyer. Thus, 
there is sale of assets and. &11bsidlaries and the denial. that there 
ls no sale Is incorrect statement. In the affidavit, it is apparent 
that purchase by Mis. Esys Dubai of the assets of Mis. Esys 
H · Singapore and its snbsfdiaries after taking regulatory approvals 
682 
ESTATE OFFICER UT CHANDIGARH v. ESYS INFORMATION 683 
TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. 
which were required fodransfer of shares. Thus, under the garb 
of transfer of shares, the respondents have completed the sale 
and is creating a screen to conceal this aspect. Deal with Teledata 
is also apparent from the affidavit of Mr. Vikas Goel. Unfortunately, 
the respondent has concealed the facts with respect to Teledata 
and has not come out with clean hands. The provisions of Rule 9 
of the Rules and Clause 15 of the allotment letter have been 
clearly violated. Thus, the order passed by the High Court is not 
sustainable and resumption of the allotted land by the appellant 
was legal and proper. The respondent is guilty of suppressio veri 
and suggestio falsi and has violated order dated 16. 7.2015 passed 
by this Court as to disclosure. [Paras 13, 15) (692-E-H; 693-A, 
F] 
Juggilal Kamlap_at v. Commissioner.of Income-tax, U.P. 
AIR 1969 SC 932:1969 SCR 988; 
Jai Narain 
Parasrampuria (Dead) & Ors. v. Pushup Devi Saraf & 
Ors. 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 325:2006 (7) sec 756; State 
of U.P. & Ors. v. Renusagar Power Co. & Ors. AIR 
1988 SC 1737:1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 627; Life 
Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. & Ors. 
AIR 1986 SC 1370:1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 909 - relied 
on. 
Case Law Reference 
1969 SCR 988 
. 200(;' (5) Suppl. SCR 325 
relied on 
relied ou 
Para 14 
Para 14 
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 627 
relied on 
Para 14 
1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 909 
relied on 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURfSDICTl0N: Civil Appeal No. 3765 of 
WI~ 
. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2014 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 18968 of 2013. 
Chandra Prakash f~r the Appellants. . 
Rohit Shanna, Rounak Nayak, Tarun Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARUN MISHRA, J, I. The appeal has been preferred by the. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Estate Officer, Union Territory of Chandigarh, aggrieved by the judgment 
H 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh 
thereby setting aside the orders passed by the Estate Officer, appellate 
and revisional authorities on 24.9.2008, 14.2.2011 and ·14.1i.2012 
respectively, thereby resuming the plot which was allotted to the 
respondent. Facts in short indicate that in the year 2002, Chandigarh 
B 
Administration notifie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.