Review Petition No. 1006 of 2008 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20155 of 2006 and Review Petition No.1018 of 2008 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16893 of 2006. Case: 1. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, 2. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation and Anr. Vs 1. Veena Sharma and Ors., 2. Sunita Industries, [Alongwith Review Petition No. 1171 of 2008 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18080 of 2006, Review Petition No. 1787 of 2008 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16707 of 2006 and Review Petition No. 1317 of 2008 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19522 of 2006]. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberReview Petition No. 1006 of 2008 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20155 of 2006 and Review Petition No.1018 of 2008 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16893 of 2006
CounselFor Appearing Paties: A. Sharan, ASG, Ravindra Bana, Puneet Bali, Prabhjeet Jauhar, Hittan Nehra, S.S. Jauhar, S.K. Mishra, S.K. Verma, Ashutosh, Kavita Wadia, Pawan S. Bindra, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Subramonium Prasad, Praveen Agrawal and Ajay Pal, Advs.
JudgesS.B. Sinha and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure
CitationJT 2009 (14) SC 427
Judgement DateJuly 16, 2009
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Order:

S.B. Sinha, J.

  1. These applications have been filed by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation for review of judgments and orders dated 19.2.2008 and 20.2.2008.

  2. In effect and substance, these review applications are confined to interpretation of one of the directions issued by this Court relying on or on the basis of the statements made by Mr. Sharan, learned Senior Counsel at the time of hearing.

  3. We may notice the same:

    In all these cases, it is difficult to uphold the order of the High Court. But a general offer was made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that those who intend to obtain reallotment of plot may do so on payment of the price as per the current rate as on the date of the order of the High Court.

    Before us, several allottees had categorically made a statement that they are ready and willing to pay the prevailing price as fixed by the appellant- Corporation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this cases, we are of the opinion that in the event, respondents offer the prevailing price as on the date of judgment of the High Court, the plot, in question, shall stand re-allotted and should be subject to the same terms and conditions. Such reallotment may be made even in cases where we have found the order of the High Court to be unsustainable.

    Respondents shall deposit the amount within six weeks from date. Appellant shall hand over the possession of the plot, in question, within four weeks thereafter. The highest executive of Appellant - Corporation shall see to it that the order of this Court is complied with. It is, however, made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the respondents concerned in making payment in terms of this order, it would be open to the appellant to take recourse to such action as is permissible in law.

  4. Mr. Sharan pointed out that the offer made by him on behalf of the Corporation was considered by this Court in its order dated 20 th February 2008 passed initially in SLP (C) No. 19522 of 2006, which reads as under:

    SLP (C) 19522/2006

    Another submission was made by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that his client is ready and willing to accept the offer of the petitioner that fresh letter of allotment may be issued at the prevailing rate as on the date of the passing of the judgment of the High Court i.e. Rs. 12,500/- per sq. meter which having been accepted by Mr. A. Sharan, learned Additional...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT