LexH.S.L.D.C. versus PRAN SUKH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 861 H.S.l.D.C. v. PRAN SUKH & ORS. I.A. N0.1 OF 2014 IN Curative Petition (C) D.No.3040 Of2014 IN (Review Petition (C) No.2107 Of 2010@ Review Petition (C) Nos.2107-2108 of2010) IN (Civil Appeal No.6515 of 2009) ARd in the Matter of: MANESAR INDUSTRIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 12, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT, JJ.] Supreme Court Rules,· 1966: Or XVIII r. 5; Or.X rr. 3 and 4 - Curative petition-Acquisition of land for benefit of HSI/DC -Applicants are beneficiaries of the acquisition of land who A B c D entered into agreement with HSI/DC which allots plots to its. E members for valuable consideration - Compensation enhanced by High Court based on sale deed executed by two private companies - Supreme Court upheld the same - Applicant filed curative petition on the ground that these sale deeds were not genuine and therefore were wrongly relied F upon - Curative petition found not maintainable by Registry - Meanwhile HSI/DC filed a review petition before Supre;ne Court which was a/so dismissed - Applicant filed instant second curative petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice which was also found to be not G maintainable - Registry refused to list it on the ground of non filing of review petition prior to the curative petition - Held: Curative Petition is misconceived and vexatious for the reasons rightly recorded by the Registry- Rejection of the previous Curative Petition by the Registry was not assailed H 861 862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. A by the applicant and the factual situation has not changed at all - Applicant is similarly placed as the other Association which was found not to have locus standi and the grounds for review were the same - Applicant was throughout aware of the ongoing proceedings before the Court, yet it did not take R any action towards getting itself impleaded as a party in the proceedings - In any case, it cannot plead violation of principles of natural justice- The documents and the grounds it is seeking before this Court to ventilate were already heard and analysed by this Court, which cannot be raked up again C and again by means of a Curative Petition - The objections raised by the Registry were correct and are upheld. D E . F Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra 2002 (2) SCR 1006: (2002) 4 sec 388 - relied on. Case Law Reference 2002 (2) SCR 1006 relied on. Para 6. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A No. 1 OF 2014 IN Curative Petition (C) D. No. 3040 of2014 IN Review Petition (C) No. 2107 of2010@ Review Petition (c) Nos. 2107-2108 of2010 IN Civil Appeal No. 6515 of2009 . From tlie Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2006 of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in RF.A No. 2699 of2003. G And in the Matter.of: MANESAR INDUSTRIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION Annam D. N. Rao, Adv., for the Appellant. M. Vil:lhuti S. Gupta, Dr. Kailash Chand, SanjeevAnand, H Rajnish G., Advs., for the Respondents. H.S.l.D.C. v. PRAN SUKH & ORS. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 863 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. This Appeal by way of motion in Curative Petition Diary No. 231 of2014 in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 challenges the Order dated 12.6.2014 of the Deputy Registrar by which the Curative Petition was 'lodged' 8 under Order XVIII Rule 5 as well as Order X Rules (3) & (4) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. 2. The matter concerns acquisition of land by the State of Haryana for the benefits of Haryana Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as c "HSllDC"). The Applicant namely Manesar Industries Welfare Association is an Association of the beneficiaries of the acquisition of land, who having entered into an agreement with HSllDC, which allots plots to its members for valuable consideration. The compensation for the acquired land was D enhanced by the High Court by relying on a Sale Deed executed by two private and independent companies. HSllDC had unsuccessfully challenged the Judgment of the High Court before this Court, which upheld it vide Judgment dated 17.8.2010. E 3. The Applicant contends that it disco;ered that the aforementioned transaction relied upon by the High Court was allegedly not a genuine transaction because those two companies were under a common management and they had inflated the consideration/sale price in the Sale Deed in F connection with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.