9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of lease deed clauses regarding extension for construction completion. 2. Validity of charges imposed for extension of construction period. 3. Consideration of exceptional circumstances for extension requests. 4. Allegations of arbitrariness and discrimination by the Authority in imposing charges for extension. 5. Legal authority of the Court to modify contractual terms. Analysis: 1. The petition sought direction for extension charge acceptance and time extension for building construction based on specific clauses of the lease deed. The lease deed required completion within three years, with the possibility of extension in exceptional circumstances as per lessor's discretion. 2. The Authority imposed charges for extension, leading to a dispute. The Court examined the lease deed terms, noting that the lessor was not bound to grant extensions solely based on premium percentage payments as indicated in the deed. 3. The petitioner's request for extension was subject to charges, prompting a protest. The Court highlighted the lessor's discretion in allowing extensions and the absence of specific conditions binding the lessor to grant extensions based on premium percentages. 4. The Authority's uniform charges for extension were challenged for arbitrariness and discrimination. The Court found the charges reasonable, aimed at discouraging speculative plot transactions and ensuring timely constructions across sectors without unfair treatment. 5. The Court emphasized its limited role in contract matters, citing precedents. It dismissed the petition, affirming the Authority's decision within the lease deed's framework and rejecting claims of arbitrariness or discrimination. This detailed analysis covers the interpretation of lease deed clauses, validity of charges for extension, consideration of exceptional circumstances, allegations of arbitrariness, and the Court's authority in contractual matters, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
|
