Dismissed

M/S.Moc Dies and Moulds Pvt. Ltd. v. the Managing Director

Madras HC1 Sept 2023WP/20339/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner challenged the cancellation of its industrial plot allotment by SIPCOT for failure to pay installments and delay in construction despite court directions. The High Court found non-compliance with undertaking and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; consequential connected Miscellaneous Petition closed. No costs.

M/S.Moc Dies and Moulds Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Managing Director — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.20339 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P No.20339 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.19701 of 2023

¶8

M/s.Moc Dies and Moulds Pvt Ltd., SP.93, First Floor Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Managing Director State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT) 19-A, Rukumanilakshmipathy Road Egmore, Chennaij 600 008.

¶12

2.The Project Manager State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., (SIPCOT) Vallam-Vadagal Kanchipuram District 631 604.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for

¶15

issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to impugned

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P.No.20339 of 2023

¶19

order dated 30.05.2023 passed in P-II/SIP-VV/83/MOC Dies/2017 on the file

¶20

of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.G.Sureshkumar Standing Counsel (SIPCOT)

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first

¶25

respondent dated 30.05.2023 canceling the allotment made to the petitioner in SIPCOT Industrial Park, Vallam-Vadagal.

¶26

2 . The first respondent canceled the allotment order mainly on the

¶27

ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.9261 of 2021.

¶28

3. The petitioner was allotted with the plot measuring about 7

¶29

acres in Plot No.G-95/1 in SIPCOT Industrial Park, Vallam-Vadagal. The lease deed dated 13.12.2021 was executed by the second respondent in favour of the

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶31

W.P.No.20339 of 2023

¶32

petitioner for a period of 99 years from 2017 on condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/-, towards plot and Rs.22,00,000/- and Rs.1,03,00,000/- towards development charges. There was a further condition that the petitioner should commence construction of building within six months from the date of allotment order and complete the same within 24 months from the date of allotment. As the petitioner committed default in payment of last three installments and also failed to comply with other condition, the order cancelling the confirmation was made on 30.03.2021. Challenging the same, the Writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition, earlier in W.P.No.9261 of 2021.

¶33

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 19.07.2021, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.63,43,916/- in 10 equal installments to the respondent corporation and complete the construction of the building within a period of 14 months from 01.08.2021, by way of interim direction.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶35

W.P.No.20339 of 2023

¶36

5. The Writ Petition finally came to be disposed of by directing

¶37

the petitioner to pay balance three installments by way of demand draft to the respondents on or before 05^th of every succeeding month without fail. The petitioner was also directed to complete the construction on or before 31.10.2022 as per undertaking affidavit filed by him. It was also made clear that if the petitioner failed to comply with the undertaking given to this Court, it is open to the respondents to proceed further.

¶38

6. A reading of the impugned order would suggest that the petitioner paid only 8 installments that too belatedly. The last two installment amount to the tune of Rs.12,68,783/- due on 05.04.2022 and 05.05.2022 have not been paid till the date of impugned order.

¶39

7. It is recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to complete the construction of the building within 14 months from 01.08.2021 i.e., on or before 31.10.2022. After recording that the petitioner had only constructed a compound wall and no building has been constructed by the petitioner for commencing business, the impugned order came to be passed on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with both directions of this

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶41

W.P.No.20339 of 2023

¶42

Court in the earlier Writ Petition. Therefore, I do not find any point to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶43

01.09.2023

¶44

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No dna

¶45

¶46

1.The Managing Director State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT) 19-A, Rukumanilakshmipathy Road Egmore, Chennaij 600 008.

¶47

2.The Project Manager State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., (SIPCOT) Vallam-Vadagal Kanchipuram District 631 604.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶49

5/6

¶50

W.P.No.20339 of 2023

¶51

S.SOUNTHAR, J. dna

¶52

W.P No.20339 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.19701 of 2023

¶53

01.09.2023

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

M/S.Moc Dies and Moulds Pvt. Ltd. v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Moc Dies and Moulds Pvt. Ltd. v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Swathi Ecogen Private Ltd, Vs the Deputy Director

Devikala Gopalakrishnan Vs The Commissioner of Police

Madhulika Flat Owners Vs The District Collector

S.Vishnupriya Vs The Member Secretary

P.Pachamuthu, Vs The Commissioner

S.Saraswathi Vs the District Collector