NIDHIKAMAL AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. (RIICO) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed by the appellant -applicant arises out of the impugned Order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the "court below") in Civil Misc. Application No. 24/2015 (122/2015), whereby the court below has dismissed the application of the appellant under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act").

(2.) The short facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are that applicant -appellant is a company, who was allotted the land bearing Plot Nos. B -302, 303 and 304 in all admeasuring 22000 sq. meters by the respondent for a period of 99 years by the letter dated 03.12.2012 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The possession of the said land was handed over to the appellant on 17.12.2012, and the lease deed was executed in favour of the appellant on 07.02.2013. As per the terms of the allotment, the appellant was required to invest a sum of Rs. 22.75 crores during the period of 2 years from the date of allotment, however the appellant could make investment only of Rs. 6.89 crores in 3 years. The respondent therefore issued the notice on 19.05.2015, calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled. The respondent thereafter gave another notice dated 25.06.2015 informing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.6 crore by 03.07.2015, failing which the allotment in favour of the appellant would be cancelled. The appellant therefore invoked the arbitration clause as contained in the lease deed dated 07.02.2013, requesting the named Arbitrator -cum -Collector Ajmer to enter into the reference. The appellant -applicant also filed an application under Sec. 9 of the said Act before the court below seeking interim measure for restraining the respondent from cancelling the allotment and from recovering the amount mentioned in the notice.

(3.) The said application was resisted by the respondent by filing the reply before the court below contending inter alia that appellant was allotted the plots bearing No. 302, 303 and 304 by way of preferential allotment under Rule 3(W) of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules'), which fact was suppressed by the appellant in the application. It was further contended that as per the condition No. 11 of the allotment letter, the appellant was required to make investment of Rs. 22.75 crores within two years, however the said condition having not been complied with, the appellant was issued wake up notices time and again and ultimately the notice under challenge was issued.