LexU.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR. versus INGERSOLL RAND WADCO TOOLS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 81 U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT A CORPORATION AND ANR. V. INGERSOLL RAND WADCO TOOLS LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2005) APRIL 30, 2009 B ~ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Building Laws: Transfer charges - Demand for - High c Court held that demand had no basis - On facts, held: Approach of High Court in dealing with issue was not correct - Matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh. The respondent No. 1 filed writ petition challenging D orders of appellant-corporation and for writ of mandamus seeking direction to the Corporation to approve the building expansion plan submitted by respondent no. 1 without insisting upon the payment of transfer charges. The High Court was of the view that there was merely E change of name and there was no change in the )• corporate structure and therefore the demand as made had no legal basis. In appeal to this court, it was contended that the F High Court proceeded on factually erroneous premises. In 1973, plot in question was alloted and lease deed was executed between Corporation and a private company. Thereafter that private company was changed to public limited company. Again in 1997, the said company was G reconverted into a private limited company. The controversy was whether there was merely a change of name or there was structural change, bringing into existence different legal entities. According to the 81 H 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A appellant this aspect was lost sight of by the High Court who proceeded on the basis of alleged agreement between the appellant and the respondent no.1, when actually it was not so. B Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: Apparently the High Court confused the )- factual scenario and proceeded as if originally there was an agreement between the appellant and the respondent c No.1. Further the High Court recorded a finding that pursuant to the lease deed the writ petitioner company paid transfer consideration and the possession of the site was handed over to it and remained as it is. This was not the factual scenario. The approach of the High Court in D dealing with the issues raised before it was not correct. [Paras 8 and 9] (84-C-E] · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2005. E From the Judgment & Order dated 19.08.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26379 of 2000. • R.P. Bhatt, P.N. Gupta and Vaibhav Jain for the F Appellants. Ajay Kr. Mishra, Vikram and Himanshu Munshi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of Division H Bench of Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondent no.1. In the writ petition challenge was to the U.P. STATE INDUS. DEVE. CORPN. v. INGERSOLL 83 RAND WADCO TOOLS LTD. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] impugned orders dated 61112000, 151412000 and 161711999 A passed by the respondent No.2, Regional Manager, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, Ghaziabad (in short ·corporation'). There was further prayer for writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to approve the building expansion plan submitted by the writ petitioner without insisting upon the B payment of transfer charges. \ 3. The High Court was of the view that there was merely change of name and there was no change in the corporate structure and therefore the demand as made has no legal c basis. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has proceeded on factually erroneous premises. It proceeded on the basis as if there was any agreement between the Corporation and the present respondent No.1. It is pointed out that on 20.8.1973 a plot No.37-A was reserved \ and allotted to in the name of Sh. O.P.Wadhwa. A lease deed D was executed on 22110/1974 between the Corporation as lessor and M/s. Wadco Tools Private Limited. One Kailash C. Wadhwa, Director of Private Limited Company signed the lease deed. Thereafter, 25% of the Paid up Share Capital of Wadco Tools Private Limited was allotted to Mis. Stern Wanner E Corporation, U.S.A. and the Private Company Limited was converted in a Public Limited Company . i.e. Wadco Tools Limited. 4. According to the appellant a closely held private F company was chang
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.