NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LTD Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1st June, 2005, first petitioner had applied for conversion of a commercial plot bearing No.12, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject premises) from leasehold to freehold. Thereupon, respondent had raised a demand vide impugned Communication of 5th August, 2010 (Annexure P-17) of unearned increase and had called upon the first petitioner to pay the misuse charges, as indicated in the aforesaid impugned demand letter (Annexure P-17). Respondent's notice of 13th January, 2011 (Annexure P-20) calling upon the first petitioner to pay the amount of unearned increase and the misuse charges is also impugned in this petition.

(2.) THE second petitioner in its Representation of 6th September, 2010 (Annexure P-18) had requested the respondent to withdraw the impugned demand and to process the conversion of the subject premises from leasehold to freehold by pointing out that the second petitioner was the wholly owned subsidiary of the first petitioner and that the Stainless Steel business now stood vested with the second petitioner in pursuance to the approval of the scheme and arrangement of de-merger by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide its order of 30th May, 2003 (Annexure P-4).

(3.) IN the rejoinder filed by petitioners, it is asserted that the petitioner companies are the part of the same group and controlled and owned by the same management and therefore it cannot be said that there was any effective transfer of the subject premises to the third party and thus unearned increase is not leviable and by applying the principle of lifting the corporate veil it becomes evident that the petitioners are not two separate entities and infact the second petitioner is almost fully owned subsidiary of the first petitioner.