Allowed

M/S.Temple City Indu v. Orissa Industrial in

Orissa HC15 Apr 2021WP(C)/7551/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking direction to execute lease deed for industrial plots. Court was satisfied that former proprietor executed affidavit confirming transfer and submission of indemnity bond. Directions issued to respondent to execute bipartite lease agreement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to IDCO to execute a bipartite lease agreement in favour of Sarat Kumar Malu within eight weeks.

M/S.Temple City Indu Vs Orissa Industrial in — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 7551 of 2013

¶3

M/s.Temple City Industries …. Petitioner Mr. S. K. Acharya, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Opp. Parties Development Corporation

¶6

Mr. G. Mukherji, Sr. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1

¶7

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

Order No.

ORDER

15.4. 2021

1. The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶12

The prayer in the present petition is for a direction to Opposite Party No.1 to execute a lease deed in respect of industrial plot No.143(C) and 143(E) in Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar in favour of the Petitioner.

¶13

Originally the plot was allotted in favour of the Petitioner, whose Proprietor at that time was Mr. Chiranjibi Malu, the brother of the present Petitioner, i.e. Mr. Sarat Kumar Malu. Since Mr. Chiranjibi Malu had difficulty in setting up the unit on the plot in question, he executed a special power of attorney in favour of his brother Mr. Sarat Kumar Malu, the present Proprietor. A letter was written by the former Proprietor on 8^th April, 2002 to Opposite Party No.1 – IDCO for transfer of the allotted property in favour of the present Proprietor.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

Although all the documentation was complete, the necessary transfer could not take place as the former Proprietor did not come forward to sign a tripartite agreement.

¶16

On 23^rd May, 2011 an office order issued by IDCO stating that in case of mutual transfer of an IDCO leasehold property a bipartite lease agreement may be executed with the transferee ‘instead of tripartite lease agreement on submission of an indemnity bond furnished by transferee unit’. This office order was, however, made prospective. IDCO had doubt whether it could have retrospective effect to cover the case of the Petitioner.

¶17

It now transpires that on 9^th February, 2015 Mr. Chiranjibi Malu filed an affidavit in the present petition stating that he does not have any claim or right over the leasehold property as the same stands transferred to the present Proprietor Mr. Sarat Kumar Malu with prior permission and approval of IDCO. He also notes in the affidavit that Mr. Sarat Kumar Malu has also executed and furnished an indemnity bond to IDCO indemnifying it against all claims that may be raised by Mr. Chiranjibi Malu.

¶18

Mr. G. Mukherji, learned Senior counsel acknowledges the above affidavit and states that if the Court directs the execution of a bipartite lease agreement in favour of the present Proprietor Sarat Kumar Malu, the order will be complied with by IDCO.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

In that view of the matter a direction is issued to the IDCO to proceed with the execution of a bipartite lease agreement in favour of Mr. Sarat Kumar Malu, the present Proprietor of the Petitioner M/s. Temple City Industries in respect of aforesaid plots, i.e., Plot Nos.143-C and 143-E, Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar within a period of eight weeks from today, subject to any further formalities that the Petitioner may have to comply with, which would be informed to the Petitioner, not later than a week from today.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶22

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶23

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶24

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶25

M.K.Panda/K.Majhi

¶26

Page 3 of 3

M/S.Temple City Indu v. Orissa Industrial in

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Temple City Indu v. Orissa Industrial in

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

Srei Infrastructure Vs A.C. of Sales Tax

Jagadish Ch.Panda Vs Trilochan Mishra

Ramesh Ch Mishra Vs State

Laxmidhar Padhi Vs State and Ors.

Rohit Das Vs State and Ors.

Dhabaleswar Enterpri Vs Cesu of Odisha