LexINDU KAKKAR versus HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
INDUKAKKAR v. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. DECEMBER 2, 1998 [S.8. MAJMUDAR AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] A B Industrial Development-Industrial plot-Allotment-Agreement between Corporation and allottee that allottee would establish an industrial unit on the plot within the time given failing which Corporation entitled to C resume the plot-Default by al/ottee-Corporation making resumption order- Suit by allottee-Meanwhile allottee transferring his rights to another person-Held, the condition was a valid one-It was binding on allottee- Transferee had no locus to question order of resumption-No absolute interest created in favour of allottee-Condition of agreement not having been fulfilled D by allottee, Corporation was entitled to ~esume-Contract Act, 1882-Ss. 11 and 31. Assignment-Assignment of rights or liabilities under a contract- lndustrial plot allotted to allottee under an agreement that he would establish industrial unit on it within specified period-Allottee failing to fulfil the E condition-Plot assumed by Corporation-Allottee transferring his right to another person-Held, transferee cannot compel the Corporation to recognise him as the allottee. An industrial plot was allotted to Mis. 'YK' (the allottee). An agreement was executed on 6th August. 1979 between the respondent-Corporation and F the allottee. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulated that the allottee would start on the allotted site construction of building for setting up an industry within 11 period of six months and complete the construction within two years from the date of issue of the allotment letter. It was further stipulated that the allottee would complete the erection and installation of machinery and commence production within a period of three years from the date of allotment G of the plot failing which the plot would be liable to be resumed by the Corporation. Later, a registered deed of conveyance was executed by the Corporation in favour of the allottee. On 6.1.1984 the Corporation issued a notice to the allottee calling upon him to show cause why the plot should not be resumed, as the allottee failed to establish the industrial unit on the said H 277 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A plot till the end of 1983. The allottee sent a reply to the Corporation but the latter did not find it satisfactory and resumed the plot on 16.3.1984. The allottee filed a civil suit for declaration that the order of resumption was illegal and void. It was contended by the allottee that clause 7 of the agreement was unenforceable in view of Section 11 of Transfer of Property B Act, 1882. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner got a registered sale deed from the allottee of its rights in respect of the said plot and got herself imp leaded as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit. The trial court decreed the suit and declared the resumption order as manifestly illegal and beyond jurisdiction. But, the first appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed C the suit holding that the Corporation was within its power to resume and the resumption was made in accordance with the terms of the allotment. The second appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition. It was contended for the petitioner that the Corporation had no power D of resumption inasmuch as it had failed to prove that there was any binding clause in the deed of conveyance which empowered the Corporation to do so. It was alternatively contended that the allottee could not be said to have contravened any condition regarding construction of building on the plot since the allottee had already commenced constructing an edifice thereon. E Dismissing the petition, this Court HELD : I. I. The High Court has rightly held that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the validity of the order of resumption. (286-H] 1.2. The petitioner cannot escape from the position that he is to abide F by the terms and conditions of the agreement admitted to have been executed between the parties. The allottee did not take any steps towards implementation G of the proposed industrial unit. So the petitioner who is only a transferee of the allottee cannot claim any other right which even the allottee did not have. [283-A; 284-F-GJ 2.1. The condition that the industrial unit shall be established within a specified period failing which the interes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.