Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Demand for Additional Premium for Extension of Time to Complete Construction — Period of Five Years for Completion Computed from Date of Registration of Agreement to Lease, Not from Date of Possession. The court held that the agreement to lease is a license and the period for completing construction under MIDC allotment runs from its registration, not from possession.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 246
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s. Paramhari Engineers, a proprietary concern, was allotted a plot of land by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) on 23.01.2008. Possession was handed over on 28.02.2008. The agreement to lease was executed on 26.03.2009 and registered on 30.03.2009. The petitioner sought extension of time to complete construction and obtain a Building Completion Certificate. MIDC demanded Rs.32,42,500/- as non-refundable additional premium, computing the five-year period from the date of possession (28.02.2008). The petitioner challenged this demand, arguing that the period should run from the date of registration of the agreement to lease (30.03.2009). The court held that the agreement to lease is a license, and the period for completion runs from its registration. The demand based on possession date was arbitrary. The court allowed the petition, quashed the demand, and directed MIDC to extend time without additional premium, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.32,42,500/- with the court registry.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Allotment of Land - Period of Completion - The period of five years for completing construction and obtaining Building Completion Certificate under MIDC allotment is to be computed from the date of registration of the agreement to lease, not from the date of possession - The agreement to lease is a license and the period runs from its registration - Held that the demand for additional premium based on computation from possession date was arbitrary and unsustainable (Paras 3-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the period of five years for completing construction of factory building and obtaining Building Completion Certificate should be computed from the date of possession or from the date of registration of the agreement to lease.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed. Communication dated 20.11.2013 demanding Rs.32,42,500/- quashed. Respondents directed to extend time limit up to 27.02.2014 without demanding additional premium. Amount deposited by petitioner to be refunded.

Law Points

  • Period of five years for completing construction under MIDC allotment runs from date of registration of agreement to lease
  • not from date of possession
  • Agreement to lease is a license
  • not a lease
  • Demand for additional premium without contractual basis is arbitrary
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 134

Writ Petition No. 6235 of 2013

2015-03-30

B.P. Dharmadhikari, A.P. Bhangale

Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde for petitioner; Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri M.M. Agnihotri for respondents

M/s. Paramhari Engineers

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging demand for additional premium for extension of time to complete construction.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of communication dated 20.11.2013 demanding Rs.32,42,500/- as non-refundable additional premium.

Filing Reason

Respondent demanded additional premium computing five-year period from date of possession instead of date of registration of agreement to lease.

Previous Decisions

Court on 23.12.2013 directed petitioner to deposit Rs.32,42,500/- with Registry, which was done.

Issues

Whether the period of five years for completing construction runs from date of possession or date of registration of agreement to lease.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued period begins from registration of ATL (30.03.2009). Respondent argued period begins from date of possession (28.02.2008).

Ratio Decidendi

The period of five years for completing construction under MIDC allotment is to be computed from the date of registration of the agreement to lease, as the agreement is a license and the period runs from its registration.

Judgment Excerpts

The question raised by the petitioner before this Court is about the date from which period of five years for completing the above mentioned task should be computed. According to it, said period begins to run after registration of ATL (agreement to lease) i.e. from 30.03.2009. According to the respondents, the period must be computed from the date on which the petitioner was placed in possession i.e. from 28.02.2008.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed writ petition challenging demand dated 20.11.2013. Court on 23.12.2013 directed deposit of Rs.32,42,500/-. Petition heard and decided on 30.03.2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966; Hereditary Trustees' Bare Right to Manage Not Property Under Article 19(1)(f). The Court Held That Even If the Offic...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Interim Order in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Directs Deposit of Entire Awarded Sum with 50% Withdrawal on Security. The Court balanced interests of both parties by allowing partial withdrawal on security and inves...