ITC LTD. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

A (Civil Appeal No. 4561 of 2008) JULY 5, 2011 B

Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, c 1973:

ITC LTD. v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. 67 for setting up hotels is valid -There is no violation of the A regulations or policies of NO/DA in allotting commercial plots for hotels - Therefore, cancellation of allotment is unsustainable.

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.

A and Finalisation of Plan) 1991 Regulations, 1991 - Policy dated 22.5.2006 of Government of Uttar Pradesh - Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Public law - Breach of statutory provisions or procedural irregularities - Allotment of plots for hotels on 90 years lease 8 - Cancellation of - Remedial action - Explained.

TOURISM:

69 occurred on account of a mistake on the part of the officers of NO/DA in misinterpreting the government policy dated 22.5.2006 - The a/lottees are given the option to continue their respective leases by paying the premium (allotment rate) at Rs. 70,0001- per sq.m. (with corresponding increase in yearly rent/one time lease rent}, without any location benefit charges 8 - NO/DA Policies and Procedures for Commercial Property Management, 2004 - Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - s.41.

Words and Phrases: c Expression 'industry' used in the context of tourism/hotel - Connotation of.

Keeping in view the Common Wealth Games 2010 and pursuant to a meeting with the Secretary, Sports and o Youth Affairs, Government of India, the NOIDA, on 17.10.2006, invited applications for allotment of plots of industrial land at industrial rates of Rs. 7,4001- per sq. mts. plus location charges for 5 star, 4 star and 3 star hotels on 90 years lease ha.sis. Allotments of 9 plots for 5 star E hotels 2 plots for 4 star hotel and 3 plots for 3 star hotels were made on 12.01.2007. The Government scheme dated 22.05.2006 was approved on 05.06.2006 and the lease deeds were registered in two cases and in other cases, the registration was kept pending on the ground of under valuation stating that as against circle rate of F Rs.70,0001- per sq. mt., the premium for the sale was only Rs. 7,400 per sq. mts. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court on the ground that the allotment of the said plots was at a very low price. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court to the State Government to exercise its power G of revision u/s.41(3) read with s.12 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the Government concluded that the allotments made were irregular for (i) allotments of commercial plots had been made for H

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.

A industrial purposes at industrial rates without getting the land use changed from commercial to industrial in accordance with the regulations and without obtaining the consent of the state government; and (ii) the plots earmarked for commercial use in a commercial area were B allotted at rates applicable to industrial plots, without calling for competitive bids/tenders and without the permission of the state government. It, therefore, directed on 01.08.2007 NOIDA to cancel the allotments and initiate action against the officers of NOIDA responsible for the c irregularities. Consequently, the NOIDA issued cancellation letters dated 3.8.2007 canceling the allotments and consequential leases granted in favour of the appellants; and the said writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. D The allottees filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the cancellation of allotment of plots and the leases by communications dated 3.8.2007. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions. It quashed the order dated 1.8.2007 of the State E Government and the cancellation orders dated 3.8.2007 passed by NOIDA on the ground that they were opposed to principles of natural justice for want of opportunity of hearing as required under proviso to s.41(3) of 1973 Act. The High Court, therefore, remanded the matters to the F State Government for taking decision afresh.

In the instant appeals filed by the allottees, it was contended for the appellants that the High Court, having quashed the order of the State Government dated G 1.8.2007 and the consequential orders of cancellation dated 3.8.2007 passed by NOIDA, ought to have upheld the allotments and the leases and should not have remanded the matter to the state government for consideration. H

71

On 9.7.2008 the Court directed status quo regarding possession. On 18.7.2008 the Court, while granting stay of dispossession of the appellants from the respective sites allotted to them, directed the State Government to give a hearing to the appellants and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The state government accordingly passed individual orders dated 8.9.2008 in the case of each of the appellants, holding that the allotment of plots to them was bad. It cancelled the allotments and directed action to be taken against the erring officers of NOIDA. c · The questions for consideration before the Court were: (1) "Where allotment has been followed by grant of a lease (which is duly executed) and delivery of . possession in favour of the less-ee, whether the leases could be unilaterally cancelled by the lessor?" (2) D "Whether the cancellations were on account of change in policy as a consequence of change of government, or on account of new government's desire to nullify the actions of previous government?" (3) "Whether the allotments of plots to appellants suffer from any irregularity or illegality?" Disposing of the appeals, the Court

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.

A 16) (107-C-D-F-G]

Whether completed lease can be cancelled:

2.1. Two lease deeds have been duly registered. In regard to other lease deeds, which were presented for registration, though there is no objection for registration, registration formalities are kept pending in view of a · demand by the registration authorities for deficit stamp duty and registration charges on the basis of circle rate and the issue is pending before the registration officer concerned or in cpurt. As far as NOIDA is concerned, execution and registration of the leases were complete.d, and, consequently, possession of the plots was delivered to the allottees/lessees in April and May, 2007. Each appellant has also incurred considerable amount for preliminary expenditure for the hotel project (in addition to the premium, location benefit charges, rent, stamp duty and registration charges) as they were expected to execute the projects in a time bound manner. [para 19] [110-H; 111-A-D] E 2.2. Under private law, a lease governed exclusively by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 could be cancelled only by filing a civil suit for its cancellation or for a declaration that it is illegal, null and void and for the consequential relief of delivery back of possession. F Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction grants such a decree, the lease will continue to be effective and binding. Unilateral cancellation of a registered lease deed by the lessor will neither terminate the lease nor entitle a lessor to seek possession. This is the position under private law. [para 21) [111-G-H; 112-A] 2.3. But, where the grant of lease is governed by a statute or statutory regulations, and if such statute expressly reserves the power of cancellation or revocation .to the lessor, it will be permissible for an

73

Authority, as the lessor, to cancel a duly executed and registered lease deed, even if possession has been delivered, on the/ specific grounds of cancellation provided in the statute. [para 22] [112-B]

2.4. In the instant case, NOIDA is an authority 8 constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, for development of an industrial and urban township (also known as Noida) in Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of the Act. Section 7 empowers the authority to sell, lease or otherwise transfer whether by auction, allotment or otherwise, any land or building belonging to it in the industrial development area, on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to impose, on such terms and conditions and subject to any rules that may be made. Section 14 empowers the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority to resume a site or building which had been transferred by the Authority and forfeit the whole or part of the money paid in regard to such transfer, in the following two circumstances : (a) non-payment by the lessee, of consideration money or any installment thereof due by the lessee on account of the transfer of any site or building by the Authority; or b) breach of any condition of such transfer or breach of any rules or regulations made under the Act by the lessee. Thus, if a lessee commits default in paying either the premium or the lease rent or other dues, or commits breach of any term of the lease deed or breach of any rules or regulations under the Act, the Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA can res1,Jme the leased plot or building in the manner provided i~ the statute, without filing a civil suit. The authority to resume implies and includes the authority to unilaterally cancel the lease. [para 23] [112-C-H; 113-A]

2.5. NOIDA has not alleged or made out any default in payment or breach of conditions of the lease or breach H

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.

A of rules and regulations. Nor is it the case of NOIDA that any of the appellants is guilty of any suppression or misstatement of fact, misrepresentation or fraud. Neither the cancellation of the allotment and the lease by NOIDA by letter dated 3.8.2007, nor the orders dated 1.8.2007 or B 8.9.2008 made by the state government refer to any of these grounds. Therefore, the allotment of commercial plots by NOIDA to the appellants for setting up hotels is valid. There is no violation of the regulations or policies of NOIDA in allotting commercial plots for hotels. c Therefore, cancellation of allotment is unsustainable. The cancellation cannot be sustained with reference to the grounds mentioned in s. 14 of the Act. The grounds mentioned for cancellation are mistakes committed by NOIDA itself in making allotments and fixing the premium, 0 in violation of the Regulations and policies of NOIDA by officers of NOIDA. These are not grounds for cancellation u/s 14 of the Act. [para 25 and 58] [113-F-H; 114-A; 141- D] 2.6. Section 41 (3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and E Development Act, 1973 shows that the State government, can examine the legality or propriety of any order of NOIDA and pass appropriate orders. If the state government in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction finds the allotments were irregular or contrary to the F regulations or policies of NOIDA and directs cancellation, the allotments become invalid and leases also become invalid. Consequently, NOIDA can resume possession, without intervention of a civil court in a civil suit. [para 27] [116-B-D] G State of Haryana vs. State of Punjab - 2002 (1) SCR 227 = 2002 (2) sec 507 and State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation - 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 86 = 2006 (4) sec 683 - held inapplicable. H

75

Whether cancellation was on account of change in A Government?: 3.1. This is not a case where as a consequence of change in government, the new government has reviewed the decision relating to hotel site allotment, 8 merely because it was a decision of the previous government. Nor is it a case of new policy of the new government being at variance with the policy of. the previous government. In the instant case, the allotments of plots for hotel projects were challenged in two writ C petitions and in compliance with the direction of the High Court, the state government had a relook at the matter, found some irregularities in allotment and, by letter dated 1.8.2007, directed NOIDA to take action to remedy the irregularities found in the allotments. The orders dated 8.9.2008 were made in view of the final order of the High D Court and the interim order of this Court directing reconsideration. The decision of the state government in revision, is not based on any different policy, but based on its finding that the existing regulations and policies of NOIDA were violated. [para 29] [118-B-D-G-H] E Whether the allotments violate the regulations/policies of NOIDA?

4.1. In the instant case, no amendment was made changing the land use of the plots in question from commercial to industrial. The state government on examination of all the facts in ·its revisional jurisdiction found that the hotel plots allotted to appellants were part of Sectors 96, 97 and 98 (for five star plots) and other sectors (for plots for 4 star and 3 star hotels) which were earmarked for commercial use under the NOIDA Master Plan. It was of the view that in view of tourism/hotels being declared as an "industry" and the government policy requiring allotment of plots for tourism/hotels at industrial rates,. if any plot had to be allotted for a hotel, H

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.

A the land use of the· said plot had to be changed to industrial use in the Master plan by adopting the prescribed procedure under the regulations, before making the allotment. It was also of the view that if the plots were allotted for hotel industry, then the B construction should be as per the NOIDA building regulations and directions applicable to industries in regard to FAR, ground coverage, height, setbacks, construction of building etc. It was also of the view thJt if plots in commercial areas are to be allotted it could be c only in accordance with the NOIDA Commercial Property Management Policy which required all commercial plots to be allotted on sealed tender or public auction basis. As NOIDA did not alter the land use of the plots in question from commercial use to industrial use in the 0 Master Plan nor did it amend the definitions of commercial use and industrial use in the 1991 Regulations so that hotels would no longer be a commercial use, but an industrial use, the state government held that statutory regL.lations and directives E of NOIDA had been violated in making the hotel plot allotments. [para 31] [120-D-H; 121-A] ·

Whether plots earmarked for commercial use in commercial area could be allotted for hotels?:

F 5.1. The NOIDA Building Regulations and Directions of 2006 make it clear that FAR and the permissible height of the building is far more advantageous in the case of commercial hotel buildings when compared to industrial buildings. It may be mentioned that even when the 1986 G Building Regulations were in force till 4.12.2006, the provisions for FAR and height of building were far more advantageous to commercial buildings, when compared to industrial buildings. [Para 36] [126-E-F]

5.2. Running a hotel or boarding house or a H

77 restaurant is a commercial activity and use of a land or building for hotel is commercial use. By no stretch of imagination, use of a plot for a hotel can be considered as use of such land for an industrial purpose. An industrial building is defined in Regulation 3.12(e) of the 2006 Building Regulations as a building in which products or materials of all kinds and properties are manufacture, fabricated, .assembled or processed. As per the 1991 Regulations, use for a hotel is a commercial use. [para 37) [126-F-H]

5.3. Having regard to the provisions of the NO.IDA c (Preparation and Finalisation of Plan) 1991 Regulations, 1991 use of land for hotel cannot be considered as an industrial use, but will continue to remain a commercial use. The policy of the state government dated 22.5.2006 cannot override the NOIDA Regulations. If any policy is D made, intending to give different meaning to the words 'commercial use'· and 'industrial use', that can be given effect only if the regulations· are suitably amended. [para 38] [127-F-G] E 5.4. When tourism is given the status of an industry, it does not mean tourism involves manufacturing, fabrication, processing or assembling, but it refers to a service industry. By giving the status of 'industry', the policy enabled a particular service activity (iii the instant F case tourism and hotels) to secure ·certain benefits in allotment of land at concessional prices and certain tax exemptions. Therefore, the fact that the tourism or hotels have been given the status of 'industry' will not convert them into industries, for the purpose of allotment of plots,· G nor will the use of land by such tourism or hotel industry, will be an industrial use. It does not also mean that all the hotels and tourist offices should be shifted from commercial areas to industrial areas or that hotels or tourist offices cannot operate in commercial areas, or that H

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.

A they cannot get allotment of land or building earmarked for commercial use. Allotment of plots for hotels in a commercial area is wholly in consonance with the NOIDA Regulations and Master plan which earmarks areas for specific land uses like industrial, residential, commercial, B institutional, public, semi-public, etc. Therefore, the allotment of plots situated in commercial areas earmarked for commercial use,. to hotels did not violate any provisions of the Act or the NOIDA Regulations. It was not necessary for NOIDA to change the land use of c plots to be allotted to hotels, from commercial to industrial use. [para 39-40] [127-H; 128-B-H]

Whether allotment of hotel sites by NOIDA should have been by inviting tenders/holding auctions?

D 6.1. Allotment of commercial plots is governed by the NOIDA Policies and Procedures for Commercial Property Management, 2004. Under the said policy, commercial properties of NOIDA can be allotted only on sealed tender basis or by way of public auction. For \his purpose NOIDA E has to fix a reserve rate and the person who gives the highest bid/offer above the reserve rate, who is otherwise eligible, is allotted the plot. The said policy in regard to the procedure for allotment of commercial properties was not amended or modified to provide for allotment of F commercial properties for hotels at fixed prices. The allotment of commercial plots at fixed rate was, therefore, clearly contrary to the said regulations of NOIDA. [para 44] [131-F-H; 132-A] Home Secretary v. Darshj!t Singh Grewal 1993 (4) SCC G 25 - relied on Brij Bhusan vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir - 1986 (2) SCC 354, Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal 1987 (2) SCR 223 =1987 (2) SCC 295, and MP Oil Extraction H

ITC LTD. v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. 79 vs. State of MP 1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 671 =1997 (7) SCC A 592 - distinguihsed 6.2. The state government policy dated 22.5.2006 or its adoption by tJOIDA on 5.6.2006 did not amend to the regulations, instructions, policies and procedures of B NOIDA. If the said Tourism/Hotels development policy dated 22.5.2006 contained any procedure which was at variance with the existing regulations or procedures of NOIDA; such procedures in the policy dated 22.5.2006 could come into effect only by NOIDA amending its regulations and Property Management Policies. As per the 1991 Regulations ahd 2006 Building Regulations, hotel buildings are commercial buildings and use of land for hotels is commercial use and any plot allotted for hotels is a commercial property. Therefore, any allotment of a plot for hotels should comply with the NOIDA Commercial Property Management Policy, 2004. Unless the said Policy was amended, providing for allotment at fixed rates, in regard to any sub-category of commercial plotS, allotment of a commercial property belonging to NOIDA otherwise than by sealed tender basis or auction basis will be an allotment in violation of and contrary to, the regulations directives and policies of NOIDA. [para 48] [134-D-G]

6.3. The failure to follow the procedure prescribed in the NOIDA Commercial Property Management Policy is a violation of the policy and such violation has resulted in loss to the public exchequer. The violation of the regulations and policies of NOIDA may be unintentional and a bonafide mistake on account of a mis-reading of the requirement of the policy dated 22.5.2006. Nevertheless it is a violation. If there is a violation of the regulations and policies of NOIDA in making allotments, the state government can certainly interfere under its revisional jurisdiction. [para 49-50] [135-A-F-G] H

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.

A (cl Whether the rate charged was erroneous and has led to any loss? 7.Mere earmarking of particular land for allotment to hotels which is a commercial activity at industrial plot prices, does not mean there is a loss in respect of an 8 amount equal to the difference between the rate of commercial plots and rate of industrial plots. Any decision to allot plots to hotels at industrial rates, by itself, did not cause any loss, as such a decision was intended to be an incentive to attract investment. But there will be a c 'IOSS' I if a plot Which is earmarked for Commercial USe, allotted for a commercial purpose, which is required to be allotted at commercial rates by tender or auction, is erroneously charged either at a residential plot rate or an industrial plot rate. The regulations and policies of NOIDA D require the allotment of commercial plots to be by sealed tender or by public auction. As the allotment is of commercial plots governed by NOIDA Commercial Property Management Policy, and as the reserve rate itself was Rs.30000/- per sq.m. it has to be held that E allotment at Rs.7,400 per sq.m. caused loss and violated the regulations and p~licy of NOIDA. [para 53 and 55] [138-D-F; 139-C-E-F] IV. What should be the consequence of the violation? F 8.1. The violation occurred on account of a mistake on the part of the .officers of NOIDA in misinterpreting the government policy dated 22.5.2006, which has resulted in lesser allotment price. The allottees were in no way to be blamed for the mistake. Nor were the allottees guilty of any suppression, misstatement or misrepresentation of facts, fraud, collusion or undue influence in obtaining the allotments at Rs. 7,400/- per sq.m. According to respondents, the rate of premium ought to have been Rs.70,000/- per sq.m. being the market rate, even though the reserve rate was only Rs.30,000/- per sq.m. The

ITC LTD. v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. 81 mistake was found out by the state government, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. But by "then the allotment was followed by payment of premium, execution of the lease deed, and delivery of possession. By the time the state government decided that the allotment should be cancelled the transaction was complete in all respects. The fact that the registration of some of the leases was kept 'pending' in view of a dispute relating to valuation would not be relevant for this purpose. [para 58) [141-E-G]

8.2. In public law, breach of statutory provisions, c procedural irregularities, arbitrariness and mala fides on the part of the Authority (transferor) will furnish grounds to cancel or annul the transfer. But before a completed transfer is interfered on the ground of violation of the regulations, it will be necessary to consider: whether the transferee had any role to play (fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence etc.) in such violation of the regulations, in which event cancellation of the transfer is inevitable. If the transferee had acted bona fide and was blameless, it may be possible to save the transfer but that again would depend upon the answer to the further question as to whether public interest has suffered or will suffer as· a consequence of the violation of the regulations:

(i) If public interest has neither suffered, nor likely to suffer, on account of the violation, then the transfer may be allowed to stand as then the violation will be a mere technical procedural irregularity without adverse effects.

(ii) On the other hand, if the violation of the G .regulations leaves or likely to leave an everlasting adverse effect or ·impact on public interest (as for example when it results in environmental degradation or results in a loss which is not reimbursable), public interest should prevail and the H

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.

A transfer should be rescinded or cancelled. (iii) But where the consequence of the violation is merely a short-recovery of the consideration, the transfer may be saved by giving the transferee an opportunity to make good the short-fall in consideration. [para 63.1] [145-F-H; 146-A-D] 8.3. If the government or its instrumentalities are seen to be frequently resiling from duly concluded solemn transfers, the confidence of the public and international community in the functioning of the government will be shaken. To save the credibility of the government and its instrumentalities, an effort should always be made to save the concluded transactions/ transfers wherever possible, provided (i) that it will not prejudice the public interest, or cause loss to public exchequer or lead to public mischief, and (ii) that the transferee is blameless and had no part to play in the violation of the regulation. [para 63.2] [146-E-G] E 8.4. If the concluded transfer cannot be saved and has to be cancelled, the innocent and blameless transferee ~i..ould be reimbursed all the payments made by him and all expenditure incurred by him in r~gard to the transfer with appropriate interest. If some other relief can be granted on grounds of equity without harming F public interest and public exchequer, grant of such equitable relief should also be considered. [para 63.3] [146-H; 147-A-B] Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar 2008 (17) SCR 917 G =2009 (3) sec 475 - relied on. 8.5. In the instant case, the allotment of commercial plots to appellants is valid and legal. The violation is in making such allotment on fixed allotment rate which is less than the rate the plots would have fetched by calling

ITC LTD. v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. 83 for tenders or by holding auctions. The violation of the guidelines in regard to disposal of commercial plots has resulted only in a loss of revenue by way of premium and if this could be made up, there is no reason why the leases should not be continued. According to the State Government, the commercial plots would have fetched a B premium at rate of Rs.70,000 per sq.mat the relevant time (October 2006 to January 2007) and NOIDA had been denied the benefit of that allotment rate, by reason of allotment of the plots at Rs.7400/- per sq.m. Therefore, the equitable solution is to give an opportunity to the lessees c to pay the difference thereby in consideration which arose on account of wrong interpretation instead of cancelling the leases and if the appellants are wiling to pay the balance of premium as claimed by respondents, . the leases need not be interfered; [para 65-661 [148-B-G] 0 8.6. Therefore, if the appellants (2006-2007 allottees) are to be extended the benefits offered to allottees under the 2008 scheme, the rate of Rs.70,000/- per sq.m. (the rate of 2008 scheme was 10% more than Rs.70,000/- per sq.m.) claimed by the respondents becomes logical and E reasonable. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the claim of respondents that the allotment rate should be Rs.70,000/- per s.q.m. The appellants are granted an opportunity to save the leases by paying the difference in premium at Rs.62600/- per sq.m. to make it upto F Rs.70,000/- per sq.m. [para 69] [151-D-F]

(i) The order of the High Court setting aside the revisional order dated 1.8.2007 of the State Government and the consequential orders of G cancellation of allotment of plots dated 3.8.2007 by NOIDA, is affirmed. (ii) The revisional orders dated 8.9.2008 passed by the State Government cancelling the allotments of plots to appellants, are set aside. H

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.

A (iii) The appellants are given the option to continue their respective leases by paying the premium (allotment rate) at Rs.70000/- per sq.m. (with corresponding increase in yearly rent/one time lease rent), without any location benefit charges. The 8 appellants shall exercise such option by 30.9.2011. Such of those appellants exercising the option will be entitled to the benefits which has been extended in regard to the allottees under 2008 allotment scheme of NOIDA: c On exercise of such option, the lease shall continue and the period between 1.8.2007 to 31.7.2011 shall be excluded for calculating the lease period of 90 years. Consequently, the period of lease mentioned in the lease deed shall stand extended by D a corresponding four years period, so that the lessee has the benefit of the lease for 90 years. An amendment to the lease deed shall be executed between NOIDA and the lessee incorporating the aforesaid changes. E (iv) If any appellant is unwilling to continue the lease by paying the higher premium as aforesaid, or fails to exercise the option as per para (iii) above by 30.9.2011, the allotment and consequential lease in its favour shall stand cancelled. In that event, NOIDA shall return all amounts paid by such appellant to NOIDA towards the allotment and the lease, and also reimburse the stamp duty and registration charges incurred by it, with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment/incurring of such amounts to date of reimbursement by NOIDA. If NOIDA returns the amount to the appellant within 31.12.2011, the rate of interest payable by NOIDA shall be only 11% per annum instead of 18% per annum. [para 70] [151- G-H; 152-A-C-E-H; 153-A-C] H

85

Case Law Reference: A 2002 (1) SCR 227 held inapplicable para 28 2006 (1 ) Suppl.SCR 86 held inapplicable para 28 1986 (2) ~cc 354 distinguished para 42 B 1987 (2) SCR 223 distinguished para 42

1993 (4) sec 25 distinguished para 47

1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 671 distinguished para 52 para 64 c 2008 (17) SCR .917 distinguished

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No . . 4561 of 2008.

From the Judgment & Order dated 13.5.2008 of the High D Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SLP No. 15375 of 2008.

WITH C.A. Nos. 4562, 4563, 4564, 4565, 4566, 4567, 4566, 4569, 4570, 4571, 4572 & 4968 of 2008. E

Gopal Subramanium, SG, T.R. Andhyarujina, Harish N. Salve, Ranjit Kumar, Maninder Singh, P.P. Rao, S.K. Agarwal, K.K. Venugopal, Satish Chandra Mishra, Ratnakar Dash, Ravinder Srivastava, Fakhruddin, Harish Malhotra, Shail Kumar F Dwivedi, AAG, L.K. Bhushan, Swaty Malik (for Dua Associates), Ruby Singh Ahuja, Meenakshi Grover, Manu Aggarwal, Abeer Kumar, R.N. Karanjawala, _Manik Karanjawala, Simran Brar, Vedanta Verma (for Karanjawala & Co.), Abhinav Mukerji , Gaui'av Sharma, Surbhi Mehta, Bindu Saxena, Aparajita Swarup, Shailendra Swarup, Neha Khattar, D. Bhadra, Hashmi, G Ravinder Agarwal, Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh, Sumit Sinha, Dheeraj Malhotra, Aslam Ahmed, Babit Singh Jamwal, Gagan Gupta, D. Bhattacharya, M.K. Singh, Pramod B. Agarwala, Rajul Shrivastav, Abhishek Baid, Antara, Ameet Singh, H

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.

A Pareena Swarup, Praveen Swarup D. Mehta, Ameet Singh, Nikhil Majithia, Anuvrat Sharma, M.K. Choudhary, Tanuj Khurana, S.K. Verma, R.K. Yadav, Ashutosh Srivastava for the appearing parties.