M/S. ANGEL BABY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. versus NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1073 · Decided: 27-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 1073 
M/S. ANGEL BABY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
& ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10940 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 27, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Lease deed - Execution of - Failure of allottee to 
execute lease deed for commercial plot within the stipulated C 
period on account of mis-description of the plot and change 
' 
. 
in the name of allottee -
Imposition of penalty -
Representation for waiver - Extension of time to execute 
lease deed -
Failure to execute lease deed within the 
extended time - Imposition of penalty and interest - Writ 
D 
petition - Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: No 
inclination on the part of allottee or petitioner company to 
complete formalities for execution of lease deed pursuant to 
the change in the name of al/ottee - Thus, on account of 
subsequent conduct of petitioner company and allottee, order E 
of High Court and decision of NO/DA relating to imposition 
of penalty and interest not interfered with - Direction issued 
to calculate penalty and interest as payable. 
'HL' was allotted a commercial plot. He failed to 
execute lease deed for the commercial plot within the 
stipulated period of 120 days on account of the mis-
description of the plot, existence of the municipal drain 
on the portion of the plot, and in view of the change in 
F 
. the name of the allottee. The respondent-New Okhla 
Industrial Development Authority imposed penalty for 
G · 
failure to get the lease deed executed. On representation 
by 'HL' and another, for waiver of penalty, the Chief 
Executive Officer, NOIDA waived the penalty and granted 
them further two months' time to complete the execution 
1073 
H 
1074 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A of the lease deed. Before the expiry of two months, the 
NOIDA authorities wrote a letter to the writ petitioners that 
penalty would be charged with effect from 22nd 
November, 2001. Again a representation for waiver of 
penalty was made and the Board of NOIDA rejected the 
B same, calling upon the writ petitions to pay the penalty. 
The writ petitioners-'HL' and another, filed a writ petition 
for quashing the notices issued by the respondent. The 
High Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the 
interim order. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant 
c Special Leave Petition. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The submissions questioning the order 
passed by the Officer on Special Duty dated 11.04.02, and 
D the various notices subsequently issued on the basis 
thereof, demanding payment of penalty despite the order 
of the Chief Executive Officer waiving imposition of such 
penalty for the delay in execution of the lease deed, 
cannot be accepted. [Para 12] [1081-F] 
E 
1.2 The materials on record indicate that there had 
been correspondence exchanged between the parties 
with regard to the land allotted and the area thereof on 
account of the existence of the municipal drain either on 
F the plot or in its vicinity. 'HL' also made a request for the 
plot allotted in his name to be transferred in the name of 
the petitioner company in which he and his son were 
Directors. Since the same was likely to take some time 
for completion of the formalities, a specific prayer was 
made to waive the penalty due to delay in the execution 
G of the lease deed. The CEO, NOIDA, extended the period 
for completion of the formalities relating to the 
constitutional change by a period of two months without 
penalty from 24.03.02. Before the said period could 
expire, 
the 
Officer 
on 
Special 
Duty, 
on 
a 
H misunderstanding of the order passed by the CEO, 
ANGEL BABY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. v. NEW 
1075 
OKHLA INDUST. DEV. AUTH. 
NOIDA, indicated by his order dated 11.04.02, that since 
A 
the Chief Executive Officer had given two months' time 
without penalty only for change of constitution, interest 
on the outstanding instalments, penal interest .and 
penalty, were liable to be recovered from the writ 
petitioners. The Officer on Special Duty (G) passed an 
B 
order on 26.04.02, directing that steps be taken in terms 
of his earlier order dated 11.04.02, and indicating that two 
months' time given to the writ petitioners was for 
completion of formalities for change of the name of the 
allottee. Up to the said stage, the case of the petitioner C 
company for waiver of penalty can be accepted [Para 13] 
[1081-G-H; 1082-A-D] 
1.3 The sub

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