Bombay High Court
Vidyut Metallics Limited And Anr vs Maharashtra Industrial ... on 13 November, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
22.WP.8033.15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8033 OF 2015
Vidyut Metallics Ltd. & Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Rohan Cama, Mr. P.
Parekh, Ms. Ashna Contractor i/b M/s. Federal & Rashmikant for
the Petitioners.
Mr. Prashant Chavan a/w Ms. Chaitali Kandare i/b Navdeep Vora &
Associates for Respondent No.2.
Ms. Jyoti Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : 13th NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.)
1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties,
Petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The Petitioners have challenged order dated
28.07.2015 of Respondent-Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (MIDC) whereby lease agreement dated 11.07.1975
waghmare/- 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 00:31:51 :::
22.WP.8033.15.doc
was terminated and directed the Petitioners to handover the
possession for non-use of the plot for long. This Court on
10.08.2015, directed the parties to maintain status-quo in all
respects. The Petitioners have been in possession of the plot till this
date.
3. The Respondents by reply dated 23.06.2017 resisted
the claim made in the Petition in every aspect. Petitioners by
rejoinder reiterated the case and placed on record substantial
document/material to support their case to show that they have
been using the plot since 23.07.1962, based upon earlier
agreements. The impugned lease agreement for 99 years is dated
11.09.1975. Even prior to the lease agreement, before the
establishment of MIDC, pursuant to Maharashtra Industrial
Development Act, 1961, based upon the earlier agreements, the
Petitioners have been in possession of the plot. After formation of
MIDC, they entered into the agreement so recorded. Based upon
the conditions, the Petitioners had established factory and started
using the plot but because of accident they were unable to use it
further. However, because of an unfortunate fire-accident on
04.04.2010, the running factory having 350 employees, was
waghmare/- 2/6
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 00:31:51 :::
22.WP.8033.15.doc
required to be closed down. This, in addition to the facts of dispute
between the family members/directors since 2010, also resulted into
delay in restarting of the factory and/or re-use of the plot after the
stated incident. The averments and material so placed on record by
affidavit dated 27.07.2017, also reflects their steps taken to restart
the factory/production on the plot.
4 These undisputed factors, we are inclined to take note
of while disposing the present Petition finally. The litigations details
are on record, that prevented the Petitioners to start the new
business/production. The Petitioners have with supporting material
made the representations to Respondents to re-consider their case
and grant the requisite sanction/permission to re-start the business/
production afresh. The Respondents, however, by impugned
communication dated 28.07.2015 terminated the lease.
5 Both the counsel appearing for the parties read and
referred the lease agreement and its conditions. We have also gone
through the same. There is no term/condition in the covenant
whereby in situation like this, the MIDC is empowered to cancel the
lease of 99 years abruptly.
waghmare/- 3/6
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 00:31:51 :::
22.WP.8033.15.doc
6 There is no breach of any specific terms and/or
conditions read or shown in the background, so referred above. The
power of the Respondents to terminate and/or cancel the lease if
there is breach and/or breach of covenants need no discussion.
Such a power is always available with the MIDC, however, it should
be within the frame work of law and the record. In the present
case, as noted above, there is no breach of specific terms and/or
conditions. There was no intended stoppage of business and/or
production. Therefore, this background itself can not be the reason
to cancel such lease. Due to pendency of litigation, Petitioners were
unable to restart the factory and/or production. Unfortunate
incident including pendency of such litigations, is beyond the
control of Petitioners. We see that there is no reason to refuse
opportunity to the Petitioners to re-start the business on the legally
allotted plot.
7 After going through the documents placed on record
including the averments so made, we are of the view that there was
no intentional delay and/or reason on the part of the Petitioners in
re-starting the production/factory on the plot. From the material
placed on record including the justification so given, as reflected in
waghmare/- 4/6
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 00:31:51 :::
22.WP.8033.15.doc
representations dated 08.02.2016 and 26.02.2016 and also the
Petitioners rejoinder so filed, we are convinced that, in the interest
of justice, the Respondent-Corporation is required to consider the
explanation, justification and the material placed on record by the
Petitioners and to revoke or cancel and/or withdraw the
order/communication, intimation dated 28.07.2015. Even
otherwise the Petitioners are eligible and entitled to start the
business/production though the plot was lying vacant for a
considerable time, for the reason so recorded.
8 The action of Respondents, in the absence of any
specific breach of any clause and/or condition in the background so
referred above, is unjust, unacceptable and illegal. We are,
therefore, inclined to consider the case of Petitioners by setting
aside the order/Notice dated 28.07.2015. Liberty is granted to the
petitioners to file additional representation, if any, within two
weeks. Hence the following order.
ORDER
a) The Petition is allowed.
waghmare/- 5/6
22.WP.8033.15.doc
b) The order notice dated 28.07.2015 is quashed and set
aside.
c) We direct the Respondents to consider the case of the
Petitioners based upon the representations, including
representations dated 08.02.2016 and 26.02.2016, in
accordance with law. All contentions are kept open of
both the parties.
d) All representations to be decided, as early as possible,
preferably within eight weeks from today.
e) We are inclined to order the parties to maintain status-
quo with regard to the possession of the plot pending
the hearing and disposal of representations, and two
weeks further if adverse order is passed against the
Petitioner.
f) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
waghmare/- 6/6
