9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt by DTC to the plaintiffs. No formal sale-conditions were ever fixed or communicated by DTC to the plaintiffs. None of the plaintiffs was ever asked to pay to DTC the final sale consideration amount. In the circumstances, Resolution dated 31.8.1979 was a tentative decision and not a final and binding decision as alleged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said Resolution created a legal right by itself. We do not find any bias, discrimination or arbitrariness in Resolution of DTC bearing dated 3.12.1979 by which DTC recalled its earlier decision. DTC used to make losses. The replacement cost had shot up to ₹ 3 crores. The number of industrial workers to be accommodated had risen drastically. Against 480 tenements DTC had industrial workforce of 5000 employees (in-service). They had to be accommodated. Even the Central Government concurred with DTC in its decision not to implement the Scheme. The Scheme was an enabling scheme. It was not mandatory. DTC was not obliged to sell the tenements under the Scheme. The Government of India had funded DTC to a very small extent. DTC was in fact required to repay the loan taken from the Government of India with interest. In the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int of time so as to compel DTC to convey the tenements to the plaintiffs. Whether the plaintiffs could compel transfer of tenements in their favour on the basis of promissory estoppel - We find that in the present case the doctrine of promissory estoppel had no application. On balancing of equities we are of the view that DTC which is a public sector undertaking had to act in public interest in the sense that had to keep the transport service running for which they had to accommodate in-service industrial workers which they could not have done if it had to sell the existing service quarters to the retirees. In the circumstances, the Division Bench was right in setting aside the decree passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the civil appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. - DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ. For the Appellant : K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Hina Rizvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Vijay Kumar and Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Advs For the Respondent : T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, Sr. Adv., A. Subhashini, Adv. for Respondent No. 1. and T.S. Doabia, Sr. Adv., Tufail Ahmed Khan, Sunita Sharma, R.C. Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 300 tenements to the occupants. They threatened to proceed on strike. On 28.10.1978 a Settlement was signed under Industrial Disputes Act between DTC and the Union of workers under which DTC was given six months time to take decision on the workers' demand for transferring of the tenements to the occupants. Before expiry of six months, DTC, by way of Resolution dated 18.4.1979, decided in principle to sell the service quarters to the occupants. The occupants were asked to fill up certain forms. They were asked to furnish certain information to DTC. This was done by the appellants. By another Resolution dated 31.8.1979 DTC approved the Scheme to sell the tenements to the occupants subject to certain conditions being satisfied by each of the occupants. Even in the Annual Administration Report, DTC stated that action has been taken to transfer ownership of 300 service quarters constructed under the above Scheme. According to the appellants, DTC took the above steps in line with the decision of the Delhi Administration dated 9.2.1979 to transfer 4844 tenements out of 5144 tenements in four colonies, namely, Karampura, Nehru Nagar, Giri Nagar, Vishwakarma Nagar in favour of their o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to sell the tenements to the occupants and, therefore, DTC was estopped from resiling from its decision to sell. Learned Counsel further urged that in Resolution dated 2.3.1981 it is stated that DTC had 24000 employees who were required to be accommodated. It was urged that this was a false excuse. It was urged that the Scheme was meant for industrial workers. It was urged that 24000 employees, at the relevant time, was the total workforce. The employees who were not industrial employees were not eligible under the Scheme to buy the tenements. Moreover, DTC Union had no objection to the said tenements being transferred to the appellants and, therefore, there was no reason for DTC to withdraw its earlier decision to sell the tenements to the occupants. Learned Counsel urged that it was never the case of DTC that these service quarters were required to accommodate the in-service employees. It was urged that these tenements were constructed with the contributions of the Central Government and, therefore, DTC was not entitled to utilize these tenements to house employees not covered by the Scheme. Learned Counsel urged that as late as in 1985 DTC Board had offered to transfer ownersh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel, the Workers Union had made it clear that they would not object to allotment to the sale of the tenements by DTC to the appellants and, therefore, it was not open to DTC to say that they expected other employees to make similar demands. Learned Counsel urged that Resolutions dated 18.4.1979 and 31.8.1979 constituted a promise or representation made by the Board to the appellants. It was contended that DTC had agreed to decide the matter within six months. They sought information from the appellants regarding terms and conditions of transfer; they wrote letters in which details of the occupants were sought; the Annual Report of DTC also indicates decision to transfer and, therefore, it was incumbent on DTC to act on promise/representation made to the appellants who had altered their position to their prejudice by not resorting to strike, maintaining industrial peace, not applying for alternate accommodation and by not availing of any other Scheme. In the circumstances, learned Counsel, therefore, urged that Resolution dated 2.3.1981 withdrawing the representation made to the appellants should be set aside and that DTC should be asked to implement its promise/representation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and ultimately the Board decided that it would not be possible to implement the policy decision of the Government of India to sell the flats to the occupants on ownership basis for the reasons indicated above. Thus ultimately, according to the learned Counsel, on 2.3.1981 the DTC Board took the decision that the tenements could not be sold to the appellants. This decision was particularly taken because DTC had only 480 tenements allotted to it which were inadequate for housing 5254 industrial workers in April 1979. In March 1981 there were 5839 industrial workers. In the circumstances, the decision was taken on 2.3.1981 stating that there was no ground for sale of tenements to the appellants. 9. Learned Counsel submitted that there is no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that Resolution dated 18.4.1979 conferred a right on the appellants to have the houses transferred to them. Learned Counsel pointed out that the suit was filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in which there was no prayer for an industrial relief directing DTC to transfer the tenements to the plaintiffs. It was further pointed out that in the suit there was no prayer f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not. In the circumstances, ultimately DTC informed Government of India that under the above circumstances it was not possible for it to implement the scheme. Therefore, in our view the conduct of DTC cannot be faulted. Moreover, as stated above, the decision to allot the tenements on ownership basis vide Resolution No. 139/79 dated 31.8.1979 was a tentative decision. There was no contract entered into by DTC with any individual workman. DTC was a lessee. DDA was a lessor. DTC had to work out the cost-benefit ratios with DDA. That exercise was never undertaken. Not a single communication was ever sent by DTC to the plaintiffs. No formal sale-conditions were ever fixed or communicated by DTC to the plaintiffs. None of the plaintiffs was ever asked to pay to DTC the final sale consideration amount. In the circumstances, Resolution dated 31.8.1979 bearing no. 139/79 was a tentative decision and not a final and binding decision as alleged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said Resolution created a legal right by itself. We do not find any bias, discrimination or arbitrariness in Resolution of DTC bearing no. 179/79 dated 3.12.1979 by which DTC recalled its earlier decision. DTC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remedy which is discretionary. They have instituted the suit under Section 34 of the 1963 Act. The discretion which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has to consider - the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiffs. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance, the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for [Snell's Equity, 31st Edn., page 366]. In the present case, applying the above test, we do not find an iota of mutuality. There is no contract between DTC and the plaintiffs. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to act upon and alter their position and the public interest likely to suffer if the promises were required to be carried out by the Government and determine which way the equity lies. It would not be enough just to say that the public interest requires that the Government would not be compelled to carry out the promise or that the public interest would suffer if the Government were required to honour it. In order to resist its liability the Government would disclose to the court the various events insisting its claim to be exempt from liability and it would be for the court to decide whether those events are such as to render it inequitable to enforce the liability against the Government 15. Similarly, in the case of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. (2004)192CTR(SC)492 , the Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us, Pasayat, J., vide paras 19 and 20 observed as follows: 19. In order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and bald expressions without any supporting material to the effect that the doctrine is attracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
