M/S Unnati Fortune Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Greater Noida Industrial Development ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2216 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed a fresh application seeking the same relief on the same cause of action, without the earlier adverse order having been challenged, the subsequent application is not maintainable; the earlier order must first be assailed in the manner provided by law before a fresh application founded on the same cause of action can be entertained.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2216 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8308, 8310, 8309 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
Unnati Fortune Industries Pvt. Ltd ...Appellant
Versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & ...Respondents Anr.
Present: For Appellant: Ms. Anusha Pethia, Rishabh Govila, Adv. For Respondents:
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: (Oral)
13.12.2024: This appeal is directed against the order dated17.09.2024
by which an application filed by the Appellant bearing 4814 of 2023 has been
dismissed being defective.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the Appellant had earlier filed an
application bearing 1598 of 2023 in which the following order was passed:-
"In relation to the above reliefs, a representation dated 09.08.2022 has been made by the applicant to Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, OSD, Greater Naida Industrial Development Authority (Annexure-K). These are the issues that are related to facts and that can be considered and disposed of by the Greater Naida in accordance with the law. Therefore, we direct Greater Naida to consider this representation and disposed of the same on merits within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of order. Accordingly, new IA-1598/2023 stands disposed of."
3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, GNIDA passed an order on
19.01.2024 which has been reproduced as it is by the Tribunal in the
impugned order. The last paragraph of the said order is relevant for the case
which is reproduced as under:-
"Whereas, a similar representation dated 09.08.2022 was submitted to Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, OSD, Greater Naida Industrial Development Authority for change the name of the company in relation to the plot no. 97-B, Sector- Udyog Kendra Ecotech-III as Unnati Fortune Industries Private Limited instead of Hawk Industries Private Limited in the records of GNIDA and to change the address of the registered office of the Company and to update the name of the directors of the company and their shareholdings in the records of the GNIDA in terms of letter dated 08.12.2021 and to cancel its demand of Rs. 2,89,93,407/- and Rs.11,71,770/- raised by the GNIDA vide their letter dated 04.07.2021. The said request has been considered in the backdrop of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and rules and regulations framed and directions issued thereunder from time to time and relevant fact and law applicable and found that the above said request made against the leased out property bearing plot no. 97-B, Sector- Udyog Kendra Ecotech11I Greater Naida is contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 29.03.2007- under which the project land was leased out to the lessee - Mis Hawk Industries Pvt. Ltd. and other applicable rules and regulations for the said purposes."
4. The present application has been filed with the same prayer made by
the Appellant which read as under:-
"i) Direct the Respondent to change the name of the Applicant in relation to the plot no. 97-B, Sector Udyog Kendra Ecotech-111 as Unnati Fortune 216 Industries Private Limited instead of Hawk Industries Private Limited in its records;
ii) Direct the Respondent to change the address of the registered office of the Applicant Company, in its records, to 8 - D, Hansalaya 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001;"
5. The Tribunal has therefore, dismissed the application of the Appellant
on the ground that the Appellant should have challenged the order dated
19.01.2024 by which the same prayer is now being made in the present
application has been rejected. In the absence of challenging the said order, a
fresh application on the same cause of action is not maintainable.
6. We do no find any error on the part of the Tribunal in dismissing the
application. Hence, the present appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby
dismissed. No costs.
7. After the aforesaid order has been passed, Counsel for the Appellant
has requested that she may be allowed to challenge the order dated
19.01.2024. The appellant may, if so advised, take legal remedies available to
it in accordance with law.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)
Sheetal/Ravi
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