M/S. DULARI EXPORTS LTD. & ORS. versus H.S.L.D.C. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 1057 · Decided: 16-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 1057 
MIS. DULARI EXPORTS LTD. & ORS. 
V. 
H.S.l.D.C. LTD. & ORS. 
(Review Petition No.1079 of. 2009) 
In 
(Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2008) 
JULY 16, 2009 
'· 
[5.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
. 'URBAN DEVELOPMENT:. 
'"-··· 
A 
B 
.c 
Besumption of allotted industrial plot - Allottee failed to 
deposit the last iristalrrient - Corporation .directing allottee to 
han~over possessiqn,.- Appeal disposed of by 9upreme 
Court on the basis ,of the statement made on behalf of D 
Corporation that those who intended to obtain re-allotment of 
p/ot ~ould do so on payment of price as per rate'prevailing 
on date of order of High Court - Review Petition contending 
that Court proceeded on a wrong premise that Corporation 
had directed resumption of allotment ofplot - Held: Allottee E 
did not deposit the required amount within the time given and 
as such Corporation mainly rejected objection but directed 
the allottee to handover possession - Possession can be 
directed to be handed over only on resumption of plot -
Therefore, Corporation had in effect and substance directed 
resumption of plot - However, if Corporation had returned the 
F 
requisite amount depositeg by allottee on the ground of 
pendency of review petition, the same shall be accepted if the 
allottee tenders it within the period prescribed - Review 
petition dismissed - Constitution.of India, 1950 -Article 137. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition (C) 
No. 1079 of 2008. 
In 
1057 
H 
1058 
SUPREME C.OURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2008. 
. -
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.5.2008 of this Court 
-
in Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2008. 
B 
A. Sharan ASG, Ravindra Bana, Puneet Bali, Prabhjeet 
Jauhar, Hittan Nehra and S.S. Jauhar for the Appearing Parties. 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
c 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This petition has been filed for review 
of our judgment and order dated 16th May, 2008. 
2. The instant case is one of those cases wherein it was 
opined that it was difficult to uphold the order of the High Court, 
D but having regard to the general offer made by the learned 
Additional Solicitor General to the effect that those who 
' .., 
intended to obtain re-allotment of plot may do so on payment 
of the price as per the current rate as on the date of the order 
of the High Court. The appeal filed by the Corporation was 
E disposed of on the above terms. 
· 3. Mr. Puneet Bali, the learned counsel appearing on 
behalf of the Review-Petitioners would contend that this Court 
4 
has proceeded on a wrong premise that the Corporation had 
F 
in fact directed resumption of the allotted plot. It was contended 
that the Corporation never directed any resumption owing to 
alleged non-compliance of the conditions of grant in regard to 
completion of construction of the factory premises within the 
prescribed period. In this connection, our attention has been 
drawn to various orders passed by the concerned authorities 
G including the appellate authority and the High Court 
4. Our attention has furthermore been drawn to certain 
~ 
~ 
factual errors purported to have been committed by this Court 
while noticing the facts of the matter. 
H 
/ 
DULARI EXPORTS LTD. & ORS. v. H.S.l.D.C. LTD. &1059 
ORS. (S.B. SINHA, J.] 
We may, therefore, place on record the facts as stated 
A 
- .. 
before .us by Mr. Bali so far as the same are relevant. 
The Review-Petitioners had paid four installments. They 
did not pay the fifth installment within the prescribed time. They 
submitted a demand draft of Rs.19,00,253/- towards fifth 
B 
installment. The Corporation by a letter dated 30th January, 
2004 referring to its earlier order dated 1st January 2004 by 
which a show cause notice was issued to it on account of non 
commencement of construction within the stipulated period as 
also the subsequent reply of the petitioners dated 9th January c 
2004, stated:-
"In this regard, I am again directed to inform you that as 
per terms and conditions of allotment, you were required 
to start construction of factory building within a period of 
-, • 
one year and six months from the date of offer of D 
possession, but you have not started the same even after 
lapse of more than two years and six months. 
In view of the above, the reply submitted by you is 
not satisfactory and plot has become liable for resumption 
E 
and as such the demand drafts submitted by you have not 
yet been accepted. On account of above viol
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.