Dismissed

Atlas Crane Private Limited v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Madras HC21 Jul 2023WA/1814/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order imposing liability on the appellant to pay the difference in plot cost with interest. The Court held that under the allotment letter, failure to pay within the limit triggered the revised rate applicable to the financial year payment was made.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15932 of 2023 is closed.

Atlas Crane Private Limited Vs The Chairman and Managing… — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.No.1814 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶8

W.A.No.1814 of 2023

¶9

M/s.Atlas Crane Private Limited, rep. by its Director, M.Senthil Muthu, 14B & C, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, Tiruvallur District-602 003.

¶10

.. Appellant

¶11

¶12

1.The Chairman & Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶13

2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries

¶14

Development Corporation Ltd.,

¶15

SIDCO Branch Office, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, Thiruvallur-602 003.

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 28.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.28310 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge.

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.A.No.1814 of 2023

¶21

For the Appellant : Mr.G.RM. Palaniappan

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶24

We have heard Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, learned counsel for

¶25

the appellant.

¶26

The order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the learned

¶27

Single Judge in the writ petition is assailed.

¶28

The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the

¶29

proceedings issued by the second respondent calling upon the appellant to pay the revised plot cost, in default of which it was stated that the allotment would be cancelled.

¶30

During the pendency of the writ petition, the second

¶31

respondent fixed the final plot cost and after deducting the tentative plot cost, directed the appellant to pay Rs.11,14,535/-

¶32

___________ Page 2 of 6_

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.A.No.1814 of 2023

¶35

[Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Five only] with further interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had paid the land cost along with interest in the year 2012. In view of that, it was not open for the respondents to again revise the plot cost at the rate applicable during 2012 and demand higher amount from the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider the said aspect.

¶37

We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶38

The learned Single Judge relied upon Clause 2 of the allotment letter which suggests that if the entire cost of the plot

¶39

___________ Page 3 of 6_

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.A.No.1814 of 2023

¶42

is not paid by the allottee within the time limit, the plot cost shall be paid at the rate fixed relevant to the financial year during which the plot cost is paid in full. The appellant was allotted with the plot in question in the year 2009. It was required to remit the entire amount within six months. However, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees Ten Lakhs only] on 24.2.2012 and another sum of Rs.43,46,665/- [Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Five only] on 27.3.2012. The appellant paid the original tentative cost with interest on 27.3.2012. As such, the second respondent calculated the revised land cost as applicable for the year 2012. The appellant did not pay the difference in plot cost and, hence, the appellant is liable to pay it with interest.

¶43

The learned Single Judge has considered the terms of the allotment letter and the contentions of appellant threadbare and has not committed any error while passing the impugned

¶44

___________ Page 4 of 6_

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.A.No.1814 of 2023

¶47

order.

¶48

The writ appeal, as such, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15932 of 2023 is closed.

¶49

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 21.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶50

To:

¶51

1.The Chairman & Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.,

¶52

Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶53

2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., SIDCO Branch Office, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, Thiruvallur-602 003.

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.A.No.1814 of 2023

¶57

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

(sasi)

W.A.No.1814 of 2023

21.07.2023

___________ Page 6 of 6_

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Atlas Crane Private Limited v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atlas Crane Private Limited v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman Vs Marg Ltd.

The Superintending Engineer Vs Khivaraj Tech Park Pvt.Ltd

S.Rajagopal Vs The Principal Secretary

G.Gunasekar Vs The Chief Secretary

S.B.Gandhi, Vs The District Collector

Dr.a.Thirunavukkarasu, Vs Union of India, Rep by its