Case: Prakash Fabricators Private Limited Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation &amp; Another

5. Petitioners case is based on following admittedThe petitioner has agreed to sell/assign its lease hold rights to M/s Purohit and Company by oral agreement datedFurtherance to the agreement, the petitioner allowed M/s PurohitCompany to construct the Factory Shed for its proposed business of spinning mill.(c) M/s PurohitCompany has completed the construction and has commissioned its Spinning Mill onPetitioner and purchaser have submitted application for transfer of plot in the name of M/s Purohit(e) On09 communications are sent by which following demands were raised.(i) Handing over charges : Rs.26,46,000=00(ii) Land Rent : Rs. 3=00(iii) Subletting charges : Rs.11,44,900=00(iv) Penalty Charges for : Rs.57,24,500=00Subletting.(f) Out of four demands, the petitioner and purchasers have acceded to payment of transfer charges Rs.26,46,000/and land rent.(g) Petitioner disputes subletting charges and penalty for sub letting stated in item No.(iii)(iv).(h) During pendency of petition, the representations were submitted for reconsideration of the matter, but the respondents have declined the request. Hence, this petition is pursued after amendment.

Reasoning: 17. It is seen, and is conclusive from pleadings and record produced by the petitioner that based on oral agreement, M/s PurohitCompany has paid to the petitioner various amounts towards consideration of assignment by cheques and Demand Drafts. Even the respondents do not plead that any amount is shown to have been paid asis seen that this circular is issued by the Chief Executive Officer of respondents. It does not disclose or demonstrate existence of any authority of law. Any authority of law for impugned act is demonstrated during the course of the submissions. It is seen that the said circular is in the form of internal communication by the Chief Executive Officer, and does not have force of law or rules having force of law.By any permutation and combination, this circular cannot be treated as issued under the authority of law.law.23. The result that ensues is that neither on facts or even by fiction of law the transaction between the petitioner and the purchaser can be regarded asThe transaction is a case of and out and out sale/assignment of lease hold rights. This conclusion is the only fall out from the undisputed and indisputable facts.