V LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR Vs. CHAIRPERSON AND MANAGING DIRECTOR SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to execute a Sale Deed in his favour in respect of the property, namely, Shed Nos. 10 and 11 in the Industrial estate, SIDCO, Paramakudi and all necessary documents that may be necessary for proper conveyance in his favour.

(2.) THE petitioner's case, in brief, is as under: a. Earlier, one Selvam, Janab S. M. Malik and the petitioner were carrying on a partnership business and pursuant to the retirement of Janab S. M. Malik, the firm was re-constituted by a new partnership deed dated 03. 10. 1992 in the name and style of "ashok Paper Boards" at Plot Nos. 10 & 11 at the Industrial Estate, SIDCO, Paramakudi Taluk, ramnad District which premises was allotted in 1989. Since the venture was not a profitable one, Selvam retired from the firm and a Dissolution Deed also was executed to this effect and consequently, the petitioner became the sole proprietor of the business. b. Since no response emanated on the application dated 12. 10. 1994 made by the petitioner to the first respondent for re-scheduling of payments in respect of sheds allotted to the business, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 18682 of 1994 before this Court in which a direction was given to the respondents herein to consider the said representation. Accordingly, the first respondent issued an order dated 06. 11. 1995 demanding a sum of Rs. 4,21,645/- with Interest @ 13. 5% per annum payable on or before 31. 12. 1995 and the petitioner too, made a payment of Rs. 4,26,080/- including interest in favour of SIDCO in full settlement of the arrears. c. Pursuant to the above payment, the first respondent had issued a memo dated 21. 03. 1996 to the second respondent authorising the latter to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner's business. Even upon payment of Rs. 4,26,080/- demanded by the first respondent and after issuance of a memo by the first respondent to the second respondent authorising the latter to execute the Sale Deed, since the sale deed was not executed in favour of the petitioner's business premises, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the first respondent but in vain.d. In the meanwhile, three institutions namely District industries Centre, Ramanathapuram, National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. , Madurai and REPCO Bank, chennai had sent letters to the first respondent stating that certain amounts are due to them from Ashok Paper Boards and hence, the sale of petitioner's business premises can be effected only when the petitioner effects payment to them. Since there was a series of correspondence inter se between the above three authorities and the respondents, the second respondent stopped executing the Sale Deed based on the same and hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) I have given due consideration to the arguments made by the learned counsel on either side.