Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S GKN DRIVELINE (INDIA) LIMITED AND AN versus HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s GKN Driveline (India) Limited and an v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and - CWP-18688-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 12329 (11 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.18688 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION: December 4, 2006

M/s GKN Driveline (India) Limited and another ....Petitioners

VERSUS

Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ....

Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA

PRESENT: Shri L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Shri Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the communications dated September 19,2005 (Annexure P.36) and October 19, 2005 (Annexure P.37), whereby it has been communicated that the request made by them for change of the name of the petitioner company from Invel Transmissions Limited to GKN Invel Transmissions Ltd. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. and further to GKN Driveline (India) Ltd. was in fact not a change of name only but was a clear cut case of transfer of ownership. In these circumstances, the petitioner company has been required to make the payment of transfer fee at the rate of Rs.200/- per square meter.

The petitioners have pleaded that in fact the request made by the petitioner company for the change of the name of the company in the record of HUDA was merely a very innocuous prayer which

was only with regard to the change of the name of the petitioner company.

Shri L.M.Suri, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that various documents have been placed on record by the petitioner company to contend that the stand adopted by the respondents that the request made by the petitioners with regard to the change of the name of the petitioner company in the record of HUDA amounted to change of ownership and was a case of transfer was incorrect and unjustified.

The claim of the petitioners has been contested by the respondents. A written statement has been filed by them. The demand raised vide the communications Annexures P.36 and P.37 has been defended.

Shri L.M.Suri, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has also at the outset contended that while raising the demand through the communications, Annexures P.36 and P.37, no reasons whatsoever have been given by the authorities and in fact the various documents which were available on the record of the HUDA authorities already supplied by the petitioners had not been taken into consideration. In these circumstances, Shri Suri maintains that a direction be issued to the authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioners and pass a detailed and speaking order.

Keeping in view the limited prayer made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners at this stage, but without commenting upon the merits of the claim made by the petitioners at all, we dispose of the present petition with a request to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, respondent No.1 to reconsider the claim made by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter.

For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioners would be at liberty to file a detailed and comprehensive representation, appending all the relevant documents before the Chief Administrator, HUDA Panchkula within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. On receipt of the aforesaid representation, the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, respondent No.1 shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the representatives of the petitioner company and thereafter after taking into consideration the various pleas raised by the petitioners and also taking into consideration the defence offered by HUDA authorities, take such appropriate decision, as may be required, in accordance with law, by passing a detailed and speaking order.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

December 4, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.