9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 994 - HC - Companies LawExclusive right to use and develop the land parcels - fraudulent mutation of the ownership entered in the revenue record - validity of order passed by the Daily Lok Adalat - non-speaking order - scheme of demerger taking place - HELD THAT - It is found that the award dated 09.12.2016 is passed by the Daily Lok Adalat. This award has been passed by the Daily Lok Adalat presided by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Gurgaon, therefore, it has to be treated alike compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. It is also true that all questions are to be decided in the same suit as the decree is not amenable to appeal and thus fresh independent suit is barred. Petitioner in terms of its pleadings has specifically acquiesced the factum of filing civil suit, execution of exchange deeds and compromise, incorporation of mutations in the revenue record, alleged misrepresentation of respondents - it would remain debatable as to whether petitioner can espouse the cause at such a belated stage by moving an objection petition in the same proceeding. This Court would not comment upon the remedies which may be availed by the petitioner in accordance with law in future. Certainly qua this aspect, the petitioner cannot maintain the present petition being suffered with delay and latches and also the petitioner having acquiesced the subject matter of civil suit, exchange deed and compromise etc. In any case, petitioner is a necessary party in view of proceedings conducted before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi and Scheme of Arrangement approved by the Tribunal in the context of steps to be taken by the parties for the implementation of the Scheme after its approval. The pending application under Section 231 of the Companies Act would be decided by the NCLT in accordance with law. It would be open to the petitioner to seek relief, if any available to it in terms of Section 232(4) to 232(7) of the Companies Act. Since the petitioner claims itself to be an aggrieved party, therefore, it was expected from respondent No.2 to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Proceedings undertaken before respondent No.2 in the context of preponing the date of hearing from 24.02.2022 to 09.12.2021 unilaterally and thereafter making communication to the petitioner only on 08.12.2021 requiring petitioner to personally appear on 09.12.2021 need to be deprecated. The application for such preponement is not forthcoming except to see that it was done on the application of respondents No.7 to 11. It is because of this act of respondent No.2, petitioner became apprehensive and came to this Court. In my considered opinion, it was not reasonably expected from respondent No.2 to unilaterally prepone the date of hearing without issuing notice to the petitioner. Preponement was done unilaterally and thereafter intimation was issued to the petitioner on 08.12.2021 to come present on 09.12.2021 to submit its case. Further one week's adjournment was given only on account of persuasion made by the petitioner. In any case, preponement of date of hearing from 24.02.2022 to 09.12.2021 was not justified. The apprehension shown by the petitioner would be squarely answered, if the pending proceedings in terms of change of land use are taken before some other competent officer of the respondent-Department. In case, respondent No.2 is the only defined authority, then the respondent No.1 can be asked to allocate the application for change of land use for ultimate processing before some other authority or respondent No.1 may itself take up the issue in accordance with law - the petitioner would be at liberty to avail its legal remedies in accordance with law - respondent No.1 shall allocate the pending application to any other competent officer or may take up the issue itself in accordance with law. The present arrangement is being made in view of attending facts and circumstances of the present case without creating any such precedent for any other case. Let the needful be done by respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the award dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Daily Lok Adalat. 2. Exclusive rights and development claims over the disputed land parcels. 3. Fraudulent actions and misrepresentation by respondents. 4. Maintainability of the writ petition. 5. Legal implications of the demerger order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). 6. Adequacy of hearing and procedural fairness by respondent No.2. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Award dated 09.12.2016: The petitioner challenged the award dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Daily Lok Adalat in Civil Suit No.160 of 2016/CS No.2536 of 2016, claiming it was obtained fraudulently by respondents No.7 to 11. The petitioner argued that the award was non-speaking and lacked judicial satisfaction as required under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The petitioner cited various precedents, including *Banwari Lal vs. Smt. Chando Devi*, to support the claim that the court must record its satisfaction that the compromise is lawful before passing a decree. The court acknowledged that the award by the Daily Lok Adalat should be treated like a compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, thus requiring judicial satisfaction. 2. Exclusive Rights and Development Claims: The petitioner, MGF Developments Ltd., claimed exclusive rights to use and develop certain land parcels as per the demerger order dated 08.01.2018 corrected on 16.07.2018 by the NCLT. The petitioner argued that respondents No.7 to 11 fraudulently obtained consent for the award and managed to get the mutation of ownership entered in the revenue record. The petitioner emphasized that the development rights were transferred to it as per the NCLT order and that the respondents acted on behalf of the petitioner in trust. 3. Fraudulent Actions and Misrepresentation: The petitioner alleged that respondents No.7 to 11 fraudulently obtained the award by misrepresentation and non-payment of the agreed amount of Rs.114 crores, with only Rs.16,30,03,539/- paid and the remaining cheques dishonored. The petitioner claimed that the fraudulent actions led to the unauthorized mutation of ownership and partition of land parcels without the petitioner's knowledge. 4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was not privy to the civil suit or the compromise. The petitioner countered by citing *State of Punjab vs. Jalour Singh* and *Bhargavi Construction & Anr.*, arguing that an aggrieved party, including a third party, can challenge a Lok Adalat award in the High Court if fraud is discovered post-award. The court noted that the petitioner had acquiesced to the knowledge of the civil suit and the exchange deeds, making the petitioner's action belated and suffering from delay and latches. 5. Legal Implications of the Demerger Order by the NCLT: The petitioner relied heavily on the demerger order by the NCLT, which transferred development rights to the petitioner. The court examined the Scheme of Arrangement approved by the NCLT, noting that all actions by respondents No.13 to 15 were in trust for the petitioner. The court acknowledged the petitioner's rights under the Scheme but emphasized that the petitioner must seek remedies in accordance with the law, including pending applications under Section 231 of the Companies Act. 6. Adequacy of Hearing and Procedural Fairness by Respondent No.2: The petitioner alleged procedural unfairness by respondent No.2, who preponed the hearing date unilaterally without adequate notice to the petitioner. The court deprecated the actions of respondent No.2, noting that preponing the hearing date from 24.02.2022 to 09.12.2021 without proper notice was unjustified. The court directed respondent No.1 to allocate the pending application for change of land use to another competent officer or take up the issue itself to ensure procedural fairness. Conclusion: The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to avail legal remedies in accordance with the law for the first limb of the argument. For the second limb, the court directed respondent No.1 to allocate the pending application to another competent officer or handle it directly. The court emphasized that this arrangement was specific to the case and not a precedent for other cases.
|
