Br Packaging Industries vs Delhi State Industries ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5151 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%
                                          Date of Decision: 11.11.2013
+      W.P.(C) 3867/2012

       BR PACKAGING INDUSTRIES                          ..... Petitioner

                         Through: Mr Arun Aggarwal, Adv.

                         versus

       DELHI STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
       CORPORATION LTD.                 ..... Respondent
                         Through: Ms Anusuya Salwan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                             JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)

M/s B.R. Packaging Industry, a partnership firm, applied to the

respondent-DSIIDC for allotment of an industrial plot under its scheme

for relocation of industries running in the non-conforming areas to

various industrial estates. A plot bearing No. 225, Pocket-E, Sector 3,

Bawana, came to be allotted to the aforesaid firm on 24.09.2004. At

that time, there were two partners in the firm, namely, Raj Kumari

Sharma and late Smt. Rajeshwari. The partnership firm had deposited a

sum of Rs 1,08,245/- with DSIIDC on 29.07.2000. It appears that some

disputes arose between the legal heirs of Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma and

the other partner of the firm, Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, who was alive at

that time. One Gaurav Sharma, grandson of late Smt. Raj Kumari,

claimed title to the aforesaid plot by virtue of a Will alleged to have

been executed by late Smt. Raj Kumari in his favour. Smt. Rajeshwari,

the other partner of the firm, claimed to have become solely entitled to

the aforesaid plot on the death of Smt. Raj Kumari, and both Gaurav

Sharma as well as Smt. Rajeshwari requested DSIIDC to transfer the

aforesaid allotment in their respective names. Thereupon, a civil suit

came be filed by Shri Gaurav Sharma in District Courts implading

DSIIDC as well as Smt. Raj Kumari as defendants in the said suit. The

aforesaid suit has now been withdrawn on 07.11.2013.

2. Clause 5 of the Provisional Eligibility Letter dated 20.04.2000,

issued by DSIIDC read as under:-

"5. The allottee is required to make the payment within three weeks time from the date of issue of this letter. Interest @ 18% would be charged thereafter for the delayed payment. In case payment is not made within the period of 60 days from the date of issue of the letter, the plot is liable to be cancelled and the amount already deposited shall be forfeited."

The aforesaid clause has been reiterated in the allotment letter

dated 24.09.2004, which the learned counsel for the respondent has

brought to the Court and has produced before the Court for its perusal

during the course of arguments.

3. It would thus be seen that the balance payment was required to be

made by the allottee within three weeks from 20.04.2000, failing which

it was liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In case the

payment was not made even within 60 days from the date of issue of the

letter, the allotment was liable to be cancelled and the amount deposited

by the allottee was liable to be forfeited. It appears from the

communication sent by DSIIDC to the petitioner that the aforesaid time

for making balance payment was extended by DSIIDC up to 30.06.2008

for all those who had failed to deposit the balance amount in time, but

they were required to pay interest as well as penalty on the arrears

towards DSIIDC. The learned counsel for the respondent DSIIDC states

that it was made clear in the public notice dated 09.05.2008 that no

further extension thereafter will be given and in fact DSIIDC has not

granted any extension after 30.06.2008 for making the balance payment.

However, the allottee of the aforesaid plot did not make balance

payment even by 30.06.2008. Presumably, it happened on account of

inter se dispute between Gaurav Sharma and Smt. Rajeshwari/her legal

heirs. Vide letter dated 01.03.2011, Shri Gaurav Sharma informed

DSIIDC that the legal hears of both the partners, namely, Smt. Raj

Kumar and Smt. Rajeshwari had constituted a new partnership with

mutual consent. A copy of the partnership deed of the newly constituted

firm was also annexed to the said letter. However, despite the aforesaid

communication, DSIIDC did not proceed further in the matter, as a

result of which this writ petition came to be filed.

4. It would thus be seen that neither the allottees nor their legal heirs

made balance payment to DSIIDC either in terms of the eligibility

letter/allotment letter or in terms of the public notice dated 09.05.2008,

issued by DSIIDC in this regard. Therefore, in view of the terms

contained in the eligibility letter/allotment letter, the allottee forfeited its

right to obtain the aforesaid plot from DSIIDC and the earnest money

deposited by them was liable to the forfeited. The learned counsel for

the petitioner had drawn my attention to a communication dated

10.01.2012, whereby Shri Gaurav Sharma with reference to his RTI

application, was informed that since the file had remained in movement

to the authorities and advocate to defend the Court case filed by him, the

action of change on change of constitution could not be initiated. It was

further stated that as per record, the said unit had failed to deposit the

full cost of plot by the due date stipulated in the allotment-cum-demand

letter issued to it, or by the last date, which was extended in general

from time to time up to 30.06.2008, along with interest and penalty as

applicable in terms of the press advertisement dated 09.05.2008, a copy

of which was annexed to the said communication.

Vide communication dated 07.02.2012 and responding to a letter

informing DSIIDC of the demise of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, Shri Gaurav

Sharma was informed that no such intimation has been received from all

the legal heirs of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and since the matter was already

sub judice, no action could be taken at their end at that stage. The

aforesaid communications, in my view, do not, in any manner, advance

the case of the petitioner. Even if the respondent were to process further

the request for proceeding with handing over possession of the aforesaid

plot, nothing could have been done since the balance amount was not

paid by the allottee even by 30.06.2008, which was the last date given

by DSIIDC to such allottees to make the balance payment along with

interest and penalty. The allottee, in my view, forfeited all its rights to

obtain possession of the aforesaid plot from DSIIDC by not making the

balance payment on or before 30.06.2008. Irrespective of dispute inter

se amongst the partners/their legal heirs, the persons claiming title to the

aforesaid plot ought to have deposited the balance amount payable to

DSIIDC, within the time stipulated by DSIIDC in this regard. No

equity, therefore, flows in favour of the petitioners who failed to deposit

the balance amount and have approached the Court after four years from

expiry of the last date for making the aforesaid payment.

5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the writ

petition and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

V.K. JAIN, J NOVEMBER 11, 2013 BG