Disposed

Sanofi India Ltd., Thr. Its True and Lawful Attorney, Abhijit Yadav., v. Goa Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (G.I.D.C.), Thr. Its Managing Director and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2018WP/480/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging discriminatory imposition of lease rental was disposed of after the respondent Advocate General withdrew the contested order, treating the petitioner as a regular leaseholder liable for incremental charges under general policy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of upon withdrawal of the impugned order by the Respondent.

Sanofi India Ltd., Thr. Its True and Lawful Attorney… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

 1 wp480-18dt23-10-18

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.480 OF 2018

¶5

Sanofi India Ltd. ...… Petitioner.
 Versus

¶6

Goa Industrial Development
…....
Corporation Ltd and another.Respondents.

¶7

Mr. A. F. Diniz, and Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocates for the
Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate General with Mr. P. Dangui,
Government Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate General with Mr. P. Dangui,
Government Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶10

Coram : N.M. Jamdar &
 Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
 Date : 23 October 2018.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

2.This Petition has been adjourned from time to time and
orders have been passed in respect of the interpretation of the policy
of the Respondents. On the last occasion, the learned Advocate
General had taken time to consider the matter. The learned
Advocate General states that he has discussed the matter with the
Managing Director – Respondent No.2 and it is decided to

¶14

 2 wp480-18dt23-10-18

¶15

withdraw the impugned order wherein the Corporation has decided
to charge the lease rental as applicable as on today on the basis that
there has been a substantial change in the lease deed. The learned
Advocate General states that treating the Petitioner as any other
leaseholder, without going into the aspect of change of name, if the
Petitioner is liable to pay certain incremental rent as part of a
general policy applicable to all, the Petitioner will have to pay the
same.

¶16

3. The main grievance made by the Petitioner was
regarding imposition of lease rental existing as on today on the basis
of the permitted change in name in the lease deed, and singling out
the Petitioner on that ground. Since this aspect of the matter is
being withdrawn, it is obvious that if the Petitioner is otherwise as
a regular leaseholder liable to pay certain incremental charges, he
will have to pay the same.

¶17

4.In view of the above statement of the learned Advocate
General, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. The
learned Advocate General states that a clarificatory communication
will be given to the Petitioner within a week from today.

¶18

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J.

Sanofi India Ltd., Thr. Its True and Lawful Attorney, Abhijit Yadav., v. Goa Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (G.I.D.C.), Thr. Its Managing Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanofi India Ltd., Thr. Its True and Lawful Attorney, Abhijit Yadav., v. Goa Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (G.I.D.C.), Thr. Its Managing Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The All Goa Government Pensioners Association Rep. by Its President V.V. Vernekar and 2 Ors., Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary.

Aleixo Arnolfo Pereira., Vs Verna Police Station, Thr. Its Investigating Officer, Verna and 4 Ors.

Surendra Appa Shirodkar., Vs Bank of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Auth. Officer and Chief Manager and Anr.

Sandesh G. Shigaonkar., Vs State, Thr. the Police Inspector, Panaji, Police Station, Panaji and 2 Ors.

Sandesh G. Shigaonkar., Vs State, Thr. the Police Inspector, Panaji, Police Station, Panaji and 2 Ors.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji., Vs Elegance Properties Pvt. Ltd.