Patil Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Dev. Corpn.  INSC 176 (28 January 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2009 (Arising out
of SLP(C ) No. 3162 of 2006) Kamlakar Bhimrao Patil ......Appellant Versus
Maharashtra Industrial Dev. Corpn. ......Respondent
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court dismissing the writ petition filed. The writ petition was filed by the
appellant questioning legality of the order passed by the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation (in short the `Corporation') dated
facts in a nutshell are as follows:
By Resolution dated 17.8.2004
a decision was taken for allotment of land at a particular price. The money was
deposited on 9.3.2005 but letter dated 30.3.2005 was written to M/s. Everest
Realtors Private Ltd. intimating them that the request for allotment of land in
the Airoli, Navi, Knowledge/Apparel Park cannot be considered. The pay orders
submitted along with letter dated 9.3.2005 were returned. According to the
appellant no reason or basis has been indicated and the High Court misconstrued
the prayer in the writ petition as if it was for enforcement of specific
performance of contract with the Corporation. The appellant has categorically
stated that the subject matter of challenge was the impugned decision taken by
the Corporation to repudiate the contract. The High Court erroneously,
according to the appellant came to hold that it can be considered by a civil
court of competent jurisdiction.
counsel for the appellant further submitted that no reason has been indicated
as to why the Corporation decided not to go ahead with the contract.
counsel for the Corporation on the other hand submitted that the Corporation
decided not to take any note of the payments made by M/s. Everest Realtors
Private Ltd. In fact the Resolution earlier related to the present appellant.
is clarified by learned counsel for the appellant that he is a Director of the
Pvt. Ltd. Co. and therefore, the reasons indicated have no relevance.
find that this is a case which could have been decided by the High Court and
therefore we set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The writ petition
shall be restored for disposal on merit. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the
parties appear before the High Court on 9.2.2009. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of
the High Court is requested to direct listing of the petition before an
appropriate bench. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case. Till 9.2.2009 no third parties' interest shall be
created by the Corporation. It is open to the High Court to pass such interim
orders during the pendency of the writ petition as the circumstances warrant.
appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
Pages: 1 2