LexM/S. POPCORN ENTERTAINMENT AND ANR. versus CITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-1' MIS. POPCORN ENTERTAINMENT AND ANR. A ' v. CITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND ANR. FEBRUARY 23, 2007 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B y Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 Writ petition-Maintainability of-Alternative remedy-Contractual matters-Allotment of plot-Cancellation of-Plot for construction of a c multiplex was allotted lo a developer after considering the facts that there were no multiplexes in that area and the earlier effort to advertise for such plots had met with no response-Developer paid the entire price demanded by the Corporation-Agreement of lease was entered into-Commencement certificate lo start construction on the plot was issued to the developer- Subsequently, the allotment was cancelled on the grounds that the allotment D ~ was void in view of S. 23 of the Contract Act as being opposed to public policy and that the allotment was without issuance of tender-Agreement of lease was cancelled and the possession of the plot was sought to he resumed.:_ Writ petition dismissed by the High Court on the ground of availrl'ility of alternative remedy-Correctness of-Held: In the instant case, 3 of the 4 E grounds on which writ petitions can he entertained in contractual matters were made out and hence it was completely wrong on the part of the High Court to dismiss the writ petition-Hence, writ petition was clearly maintainable and the High Court has committed an error in relegating the appellant to the civil court-Matter remitted to High Court for disposal F afresh on merits. The appellant made an application for allotment of a plot for construction of a multiplex. The first respondent-Corporation approved the allotment in favour of the appellant considering the facts that there were no multiplexes in that area and the earlier effort of the first respondent to advertise for such G plots had met with no response. The first respondent issued allotment letter I. in favour of the appellant and asked the appellant to pay the balance price of the plot. The appellant also paid further sums as demanded by the first respondent from time to time. The appellant entered into an agreement of 17 H 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R. A lease with the first respondent. The first respondent issued a commencement certificate to the appellant to start construction on the plot. Subsequently, the first respondent issued a letter cancelling the allotment on the grounds that the allotment was void in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 as being opposed to public policy and that the allotment was without issuance of tender. B The first respondent also issued a letter by which the agreement of lease was cancelled and the possession of the plot was sought to be resumed. Being aggrieved the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court against the cancellation of the allotment. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. Hence the C appeal Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: I. The High Court has committed a grave mistake by relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy when clearly in terms of the law laid D down by this Court, this was a fit case in which the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction in order to consider and grant relief to the respective parties. In the instant case, 3 of the 4 grounds on which writ petitions can be entertained in contractual matters were made out and hence it was completely wrong on the part of the High Court to dismiss the writ petition. In the instant case, 3 grounds, as referred to in Whirlpool Corporation, have been made E out and accordingly the writ petition was clearly maintainable and the High Court has committed an error in relegating the appellant to the civil court. (Para 44] (33-F, G, HJ F Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, (1998] 8 SCC 1, relied on. Smt. Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, (1969] 3 SCC 769, Century Spinning & Manufacturing Company Ltd v. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, (1970] 1 SCC 614, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, (2003] 2 SCC 107, Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. Bangalore G Stock Exchange, (2003] 10 SCC 212, ABL International ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004] 3 SCC 553, Sanjana M. Wig (Ms.) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2005( 8 SCC 242, Amey Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Pub
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.