Dismissed

Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Telangana HC17 Apr 2015WP/39613/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order operates on the finding that the lease between the parties stood terminated due to the rejection of a fresh NOC and the site becoming non-feasible. The Court directed the respondents to execute a deed cancelling the registered lease deed within two weeks of the order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to execute a deed cancelling the registered lease deed dated 18-12-2003 within two weeks if approached by the petitioner.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs Indian Oil Corporation… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

Writ Petition No.39613 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

The respondents filed counter-affidavit. The stand in the counter-affidavit hardly presents an issue for consideration by this Court. The relevant portion in the counteraffidavit reads as follows:

¶6

“Para 7: It is humbly submitted that the Chief Commissioner Land Administration instructed the District Collector to reconsider the request for giving NOC in favour of IOC. NOC was re-applied by IOC which the District Collector again rejected on 23.03.2004 on same grounds. The corporation will not be in a position to set up the retail outlet for the reasons stated above and also not feasible for not meeting guidelines, as the location has now come under the preview of National Highway Authority norms after the highway was converted into National Highway. Since NOC was rejected by the District Collector and also the site is not feasible, corporation is left with no other alternative other than vacating the site and terminate the lease deed. The lease was accordingly terminated from the date of lease itself as the lease deed was executed for the purpose of setting up the retail outlet and the purpose is defeated as the corporation will not be in a position to start the outlet for the reasons as stated above”.

¶7

From the above, it is clear on account of happening of an event or non-happening of an event, the respondents are treating that there is no subsisting lease between the petitioner and the respondents.

¶8

As the original lease was registered, to keep the petitioner free from any obligation,

¶9

the respondents are under obligation to cooperative with petitioner in the execution and registration of cancellation of the lease deed. The parties are given two weeks time to complete the process. If the petitioner approaches the respondents with a copy of the instant order, the respondents are directed to execute a deed, cancelling the registered lease deed, dated 18-12-2003.

¶10

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

¶11

The miscellaneous petition filed in the writ petition shall also stand disposed of.

¶12

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

S.V. BHATT, J.

¶14

Dt.17-04-2015.

¶15

Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

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. Steel Exchange India Limited, Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

M/s. Radha Realty Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Central Provident Fund Commissioner

M.Appa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs Union Bank of India

K.Pushpa Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.V.K.B. Aditya Lakshmas Rao, S/o Late S.v.Jagannadha Rao, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board