Hamdard Laboratories vs Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation And Ors.
- SCC(2017) 2 SCC 536
- Neutral2016 INSC 1100
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where enhanced compensation for land is payable under a notification, a rebate specified in the notification applies to the enhanced cost of land itself, and is not displaced merely by the fact that the notification does not expressly restrict the rebate to the original cost.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
HAMDARD LABORATORIES Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
AND ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. While issuing notice on 15.02.2016, the scope of the appeal was limited to the following question :-
"Whether the High Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner is entitled to 20% rebate on the additional cost of land payable to the HSIIDC, since there is no such restriction, carved in the notification?
3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to 20% rebate on the additional cost of land since that factor is included in the enhanced cost of land.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed declaring that the appellant shall be entitled to 20% rebate since the appellant has already paid the enhanced compensation.
2 4. The amounts due in terms of the Judgment would be paid to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
December 05, 2016.
3
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.8 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10317/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/11/2014 in CWP No. 8895/2013 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)
HAMDARD LABORATORIES Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(with office report)
WITH SLP(C) No. 10755/2015 (with Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 5517-5518/2016 (with Office Report)
Date : 05/12/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Kaustav P. Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Adv.
Mr. Rajnish, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Kapoor, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Alok Sangwan, AAG, Haryana
Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv.
Mr. Karunish Shukla, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
4 SLP(C) No.10317 of 2015 Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
SLP(C) No. 10755/2015 Issue notice.
Counter Affidavit be filed within six weeks.
Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Post the matter for final disposal in the 2nd week of April, 2017 on a non-miscellaneous day.
SLP(C) No. 5517-5518 of 2016 Counter Affidavit be filed within six weeks.
Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Post the matter for final disposal in the 2nd week of April, 2017 on a non-miscellaneous day.
(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan)
Court Master Assistant Registrar (Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free