Dismissed

Pash Space International Pvt. Ltd., v. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture (WD1) Department

Madras HC18 Jul 2023WP/515/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ petition challenging a lease cancellation order is not maintainable when the lease agreement contains a valid arbitration clause. The court directed the petitioner to invoke arbitration for redressal instead.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to invoke arbitration clause for redressal of grievances.

Pash Space International Pvt. Ltd., Vs The… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.515 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.515 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.555 and 557 of 2022

¶8

Pash Space International Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing DirectorA.Alam Pasha, S/o.Ameer Pasha, No.34/2, Dassegaounapalli Village, Krishnagiri Main Road, Veppanahapalli, Krishnagiri District. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture (WD1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Commissioner for Land Administration and Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶12

3.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishangiri-1.

¶13

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶14

Page 1 of 7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.515 of 2022

¶17

5.The Tahsildar, Sulagiri Taluk, Sulagiri, Krishnagiri District.

¶18

6.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri and District.

¶19

7.The Inspector of Police, Berigai Police Station, Berigai, Krishnagiri District.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.28394/2009/H2 dated 19.11.2021 and quash the same consequently, direct the 3^rd respondent to renewal lease dated 19.09.2005 measuring an extent of 7.70.0 hectares in S.No.78, 2.90.0 hectares in S.No.86 totally measuring an extent of 10.60.0 hectares in Thimmasandiram Village, now Sulagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District to the petitioner.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.S.Silambanan, Additional Advocate General

¶24

assisted by Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The order passed by the District Collector in proceedings dated 19.11.2021, cancelling the lease granted in favour of the writ petitioner for

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.515 of 2022

¶30

development of agro-industry is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶31

The order impugned states that the petitioner has not followed the

¶32

conditions stipulated in the lease agreement. The petitioner has not developed the land for agro-industries, as stipulated in the terms and conditions of the agreement.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the

¶34

petitioner has already invested huge amounts and the local people of that village are not co-operating for further development of agro-industries in that locality. Some villagers have encroached portion of the land and the petitioners have also initiated appropriate action.

¶35

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the

¶36

respondents raised an objection by stating that the lands, if not utilised for development of agro-industry, the Government is empowered to cancel the lease and accordingly, the impugned order has been passed.

¶37

Even as per the petitioner, they are agreeable to develop the

¶38

agro-industry on account of various local issues and since there was an

¶39

Page 3 of 7

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.515 of 2022

¶42

objection from the local people.

¶43

That being the factum, the very purpose for which the land was leased out has been defeated and thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order impugned passed by the District Collector cancelling the lease.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order. In this context, clause 13 of the agreement provides an arbitration clause to resolve the issues between the parties, which reads as under:-

¶45

“ (13) If any dispute of difference shall at any time hereafter arise between the Government or their officers and the GRANTEE as to the rights, duties or liabilities and obligations of either party in respect of any matter or thing relating to or arising out of the grant or as to the construction or the mearning of all or any of the provisions herein contained the said dispute or difference shall be referred to an arbitration and the parties agree under Section 11(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 that the grantor shall appoint a sole arbitrator to whom the disputes or differences be referred. The proceedings before the sole arbitrator shall be governed by the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996) and the decision in such arbitration shall be final.

¶46

Page 4 of 7

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.515 of 2022

¶49

(14) if the GRANTEE fails to pay to the GRANTOR any sum payable, under this grant on the respective due dates on which they are payable the GRANTEE shall pay interest at twelve percent per annum on such defaulted amount for the defaulted period.”

¶50

In view of the arbitration clause, the present writ petition is not entertainable. The parties have to go for arbitration for the purpose of resolving the issues in the manner contemplated.

¶51

Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to invoke the arbitration clause for the purpose of redressal of his grievances in the manner known to law.

¶52

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶53

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶54

18.07.2023

¶55

skr Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶56

Page 5 of 7

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.515 of 2022

¶59

¶60

1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture (WD1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶61

2.The Commissioner for Land Administration and Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶62

3.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri-1.

¶63

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶64

5.The Tahsildar, Sulagiri Taluk, Sulagiri, Krishnagiri District.

¶65

6.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri and District.

¶66

7.The Inspector of Police, Berigai Police Station, Berigai, Krishnagiri District.

¶67

Page 6 of 7

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.No.515 of 2022

¶70

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶71

skr

¶72

W.P.No.515 of 2022

¶73

18.07.2023

¶74

Page 7 of 7

¶75

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

Pash Space International Pvt. Ltd., v. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture (WD1) Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pash Space International Pvt. Ltd., v. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture (WD1) Department

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

V.Sekar Vs T. Arumugam

P.Ayinu Vs The Thasildhar

S.Sivabakkiyam Vs The Director

S.Mahalakshmi Vs The Inspector General of Registration

R.Kesava Moorthy Vs The District Collector

M.Swaminathan Vs The Sub Registrar