CWP No.19430 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.19430 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.09.2010 **** M/s. Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab Financial Corporation & Anr. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. PK Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. GS Sandhawalia, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P6) whereby the respondent Corporation has demanded the record/maintenance charges w.e.f. 31.08.2008 in terms of the public notice dated 01.08.2008 (Annexure P7) failing which the Conveyance Deed is not to be executed in favour of the petitioner. (2). Shorn of the details, suffice to mention that the petitioner was the successful bidder for an industrial unit known as M/s. Kamla Opticals Private Ltd. at Patiala which was taken over by the respondent- CWP No.19430 of 2009.doc - 2 – Corporation in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. A sale agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation on 27.08.1999 (Annexure P1) and as per the agreed terms and conditions, the petitioner has admittedly paid the entire sale consideration in instalments. There is also no denial to the fact that on deposit of the upfront amount of `6,68,750/-, the petitioner was handed over the physical possession of the auctioned property on 27.08.1999 itself. Since then the petitioner is in continuous possession of the auctioned unit. (3). The petitioner, however, did not get the Conveyance Deed executed in its favour despite making payment of the entire sale consideration. (4). The respondent-Corporation meanwhile issued a public notice on 01.08.2008 (Annexure P7) with the following contents:- “PUBLIC NOTICE FOR PURCHASERS OF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES All the purchasers who have purchased mortgaged assets acquired u/S 29 & 31 of SFCs Act from the Corporation and have paid the entire sale consideration, but have not executed the sale deed till date are hereby intimated through this public CWP No.19430 of 2009.doc - 3 – notice that they should submit the required documents for execution of the sale deed/transfer of plot in case it is allotted by PSIEC or any other Govt. Agency within 30 days of publication of this notice. In case of failure to get the sale deeds executed/plot transferred within the notice period the Corporation shall levy maintenance charges @ Rs.500/- per day after expiry of this notice till the execution of sale deed/transfer of plot as per decision of the Board of Directors.” (5). The respondent – Corporation has now vide the impugned communication dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P6) denied the execution of Conveyance Deed unless the petitioner pays the maintenance charges as per the above-reproduced public notice. (6). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (7). The respondents have filed their counter-reply reiterating that in view of the decision taken by the Board of Directors (Annexure R2), the petitioner is liable to pay “maintenance charges w.e.f. 01.08.2008”. (8). The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay any record/maintenance charges as a pre-requisite condition for execution of the Conveyance Deed in its favour? CWP No.19430 of 2009.doc - 4 – (9). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the documents on record, I am of the considered view that the insistence of the respondent-Corporation for payment of maintenance charges as a pre-condition for execution of Conveyance Deed has no legal back-up and is unsustainable in law for more than one reason. (10). Firstly, the demand of `maintenance charges’ is beyond the purview of the sale agreement arrived at between the parties on 27.08.1999 (Annexure P1). Secondly, the respondent-Corporation has factually incurred no expenditure towards maintenance of the land, machinery or the building which the petitioner- Company purchased in auction and possession whereof was immediately handed over to it on depositing the upfront amount. The respondent- Corporation could at the best recover those actual expenses which it might have legitimately incurred in honouring the agreement between the parties. That being so, the respondent-Corporation cannot insist for the payment of ‘non-existent’ charges as a pre- condition for execution of the Conveyance Deed. (11). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned letter dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P6) is hereby quashed and the CWP No.19430 of 2009.doc - 5 – respondents are directed to execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions contained in the binding agreement between the parties. (12). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 13.09.2010 vishal shonkar