REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7021 OF 2003
Coromandel Indag Products (P) Ltd. .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Garuda Chit & Trading Co. P. Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P.Sathasivam,J.
1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
decree dated 17.02.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. No. 163 of 1994
whereby the appeal filed by the respondents herein was
allowed.
2) Brief facts:
(a) The appellant is a Private Limited Company (hereinafter
referred to as "the appellant-Company) registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of
1
manufacturing, selling, exporting, trading in and distribution
of Pesticides, Chemicals and Agro Chemicals. Respondent No.
1 is also a Private Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as
"the respondent-Company") registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 in which Mr. T.P. Narayanan - respondent No.2 is
the Chairman and Director and appeal against him stood
dismissed vide this Court's order dated 19.07.2004. Mr. T.K.
Gopinath (since died) was the Managing Director - respondent
No.3 and his legal representatives are on record. In the year
1981, the appellant-Company required a property around
Mount Road Area near Mylapore, Madras for establishing a
Research and Development Centre. Respondent-Company, on
coming to know about the said requirement, offered its
property measuring 12 grounds 33 sq. ft. with buildings at
Door No. 46, Cathedral Road, Madras. The officials of the
appellant-Company inspected the property and after getting it
evaluated by an Authorized Valuer offered a price of Rs.82
lakhs for the entire property and the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
herein accepted the same. Thereafter, an Agreement for Sale
2
was executed between the parties on 28.08.1981 and a sum of
Rs. 2 lakhs was paid by way of cheque as advance.
(b) Pending investigation of title of the respondent-Company
to the suit property, the appellant-Company entered into the
said agreement since the respondents desired a firm
commitment to be made. Clauses 3 and 4 of the said
Agreement put the vendor under an obligation to produce all
documents of title in its possession or control relating to the
suit property for the investigation and approval of the
appellant-Company. Besides, getting other necessary
clearances, the respondents were also required to get the
Income Tax Clearance Certificate as specified under Section
230-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
(c) In accordance with the above, the appellant-Company
called upon the respondents to furnish the documents of title,
the details of the encumbrances on the property, if any, and
also Income Tax Clearance Certificate and other necessary
clearances to complete the sale. On 09.09.1981, the
respondents furnished the Income Tax Clearance Certificate
dated 07.09.1981 and promised to furnish the other required
3
documents very soon. They also demanded a further payment
of Rs. 10 lakhs as advance pending finalization of the sale to
which the appellant-Company did not agree.
(d) As the respondents did not furnish the required
documents, the appellant-Company issued a letter dated
14.09.1981 calling upon them to furnish the required
documents. Instead of furnishing all the required documents,
as sought for, the respondents, vide letter dated 15.09.1981,
called upon the appellant-Company to expedite the sale.
Thereafter, on 19.09.1981, the appellant-Company again
requested the respondents to furnish the solvency certificate.
In response to the above-said letters, the respondents orally
apologized for the delay and promised to furnish the required
details at the earliest and respondent No.2 also requested for a
further payment of Rs.10 lakhs as advance to enable them to
discharge the mortgage subsisting in favour of Bank of India.
The appellant-Company paid Rs. 5 lakhs to respondent No.2
on 21.09.1981 on the undertaking that the documents called
for would be sent by 30.09.1981. Again on the request of
respondent No.2, the appellant-Company paid a further sum
4
of Rs. 5 lakhs to meet the Urban Land Ceiling Clearance. A
total sum of Rs. 12 lakhs was paid to the respondents. On
19.10.1981, respondent No.2 again requested a sum of Rs. 2
lakhs to meet certain statutory compliance which was a
charge on the property. Taking full details of such liabilities,
the appellant-Company paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. As the
respondents did not furnish the required documents till the
end of 1981, the appellant-Company sent a notice dated
19.01.1982 calling upon them to perform their obligation
under the agreement dated 28.08.1981 as also to fulfil their
personal undertakings. Notice was served only on respondent
No.2 but the notice on respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were returned
back with the remarks "unserved". In reply to the said notice,
respondent No.2 said that he is not personally liable for the
payment made by the appellant-Company.
(e) In the said circumstances, the appellant-Company was
compelled to file a suit for specific performance on 10.05.1982
in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and the same was
numbered as C.S. No. 287 of 1982. The learned single Judge
of the High court by judgment dated 01.06.1993 decreed the
5
suit and directed the respondents herein to execute the sale
deed in favour of the appellant-Company and granted three
months' time to the appellant-Company to pay the balance of
the sale consideration.
(f) Challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge,
the respondents preferred O.S.A. No. 163 of 1994 before the
High Court. By impugned judgment dated 17.02.2003, the
Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench, the
appellant-Company preferred this appeal by way of special
leave petition before this Court.
3) Heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for
the appellant-Company and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned
senior counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. V. Giri, learned
senior counsel for LRs of respondent No.3.
Points for consideration:
4) The only question for consideration is whether the decree
granted by the learned single Judge of the High Court for
specific performance based on the Agreement for Sale dated
28.08.1981 is sustainable, or the Division Bench is justified in
6
concluding that the appellant-plaintiff has not made out a
case for a decree of specific performance in allowing the appeal
and setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court by
dismissing the suit.
Discussion as to Agreement for Sale
5) In order to consider the rival claims, it is desirable to
verify the relevant clauses from the Agreement for Sale dated
28.08.1981. In the beginning, the Vendor-Respondents
herein, specifically asserted that they are the sole and
absolute owner and in exclusive possession and enjoyment of
all the land mentioned in the Schedule together with a multi-
storey building, sheds, garages, outhouses, fixtures and
fittings thereon situated at Cathedral Road, Teynampet,
Madras bearing present Door No. 46, Old No. 31, T.S. No.
1238/1A, R.S. No. 1233/1 and 1233/5 measuring 12 grounds
33 sq. ft. The Agreement clearly stipulates that the Vendor
requires substantial cash for meeting its business purposes
and, therefore, decided to sell the said property. It makes it
clear that by resolution dated 16.07.1981, the Board of
Directors of the Vendor have authorized Shri K.S. Hari,
7
General Manager, to negotiate and sell the said property and
to execute the sale deed. It also makes it clear that the Vendor
has agreed to sell and the purchaser has agreed to purchase
the said property at a price consideration of Rs. 82 lakhs free
from all encumbrances and claims whatsoever on the terms
and conditions set out in the agreement.
6) Among the various clauses, we are concerned with the
following clauses in the Agreement for Sale. They are:
"3. The Vendors shall produce or cause to be produced to
the purchaser all the documents of title in their possession
or control or relating to the said property for the
investigation of the Vendor's title thereto.
4. The sale shall be subject to the approval of the title of
the vendor to the said property agreed to be sold herein by
the advocate for the Purchaser and the Vendor shall at its
own costs and expenses get in all outstanding estates and
clear all defects in title and encumbrance and claims on or
to the said property.
6. The sale shall be completed on or before 05.09.1981 or
within one week from date of furnishing a Certificate under
section 230-A of the Income Tax Act of 1981 by the Vendor
whichever is later, upon the payment of Rs. 48 lakhs out of
the said purchase money by the purchaser to the Vendor,
the balance being payable as hereinafter provided, the
vendor and all other necessary parties if any shall execute a
proper conveyance of the said property in one piece of in
several portions in favour of the purchaser or such other
person or persons the Purchaser shall nominate.
7. The Purchaser shall pay at any time of the Registration
of the sale deed a sum of Rs. 48 Lakhs out of the said price
and the balance in the following manner:-
8
1. Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 07.10.1981
2. Rs. 11 lakhs on or before 07.11.1981
3. Rs. 11 lakhs on or before 07.12.1981
The said balance of Rs. 32 lakhs payable in three
installments as aforementioned shall not carry any interest.
If the purchaser fails to pay the amounts as stipulated
above, the balance amount shall carry interest at 18% per
annum till date payment.
10. The Vendor shall at its cost obtain the required
clearance certificate under Section 230-A of the Income Tax
Act and obtain requisite permission or sanctions from any
authorities as may be necessary for the purpose of effectual
competition of the sale of the property."
The above Agreement to Sell entered into on 28.08.1981 has
certain important provisions which provide a clear
understanding of motivation of both the parties. Clause 3
extracted above provides that the Vendor/respondents shall
produce or cause to be produced all the documents relating to
title of the property to the purchaser. Clause 4 provides that
the sale shall be subject to the approval of the purchaser's
advocate. Clause 6 makes the completion of sale incumbent
on the date of furnishing the Income-tax Certificate by the
Vendor and payment of Rs. 48 lakhs by the purchaser. Clause
10 makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the Vendor to
obtain the required clearance certificate under Section 230-A
of the Income-tax Act and also obtain requisite permission or
9
sanction from other authorities, as may be necessary, for the
purpose of completion of the sale of the property. Clause 13
provides that if the title of the Vendor is not approved by the
Purchaser's advocate, the Purchaser would be entitled to
cancel the Agreement. Clause 14 entitles the Purchaser for a
suit for specific performance in the event of breach of any of
the terms of the Agreement by the Vendor or the return of the
amount taken as advance by the Vendor together with a sum
of Rs. 1 lakh as liquidated damages. Clause 15 ensures that
the Agreement shall come to an end if there is a breach by the
Purchaser. With these clauses and understanding by both the
parties, we have to analyze their claim and decide the case one
way or the other.
Whether time is essence of the contract:
7) If we verify the various clauses from the Agreement for
Sale, it is clear that the Vendor-Respondent Company herein
was in need of money for meeting its business purposes. The
appellant-Company has very much relied on Clauses 3 and 4
of the Agreement which we have already extracted. Those
clauses mandate the Vendor to produce all the documents of
10
title in their possession and hand over the same to the
Purchaser for investigation by the Purchaser. It also makes it
clear that all those documents be placed before the advocate of
the Purchaser for scrutiny and approval and, thereafter, the
Vendor at its own costs and expenses clear all defects in title
and encumbrances and claims on or to the said property.
8) In order to strengthen their claim that time is essence of
the contract, the respondents have heavily relied on Clauses 6
and 7 which are extracted in the paragraphs supra. It is clear
from Clause 6 that the sale shall be completed on or before
05.09.1981 or within a period of one week from the date of
furnishing a Certificate under Section 230-A of the Income-tax
Act, 1981 by the Vendor. It is clear from Clause 7 that on the
date of the Registration of the Sale Deed, the Purchaser has to
pay Rs. 48 lakhs out of the amount of Rs. 82 lakhs. According
to the vendor, the balance being payable in the following
manner:
1. Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 07.10.1981
2. Rs. 11 lakhs on or before 07.11.1981
3. Rs. 11 lakhs on or before 07.12.1981
11
It is also clear from Clause 7 that the balance of Rs. 32 lakhs
payable in 3 instalments shall not carry any interest.
However, if the Purchaser fails to pay the amounts as
stipulated above, the balance amount shall carry interest @
18% p.a. till date of payment. It is clear that when there was a
specific understanding between the parties as reflected in the
above-mentioned clauses in the Agreement within which
period the sale was to be completed, it has to be construed
that the intention of the parties was to treat the time as
essence of the contract. Though the respondents had agreed
to receive the balance of Rs. 32 lakhs in instalments for a
period of 3 months after the registration of the sale deed which
also makes it clear that both parties have agreed to complete
the entire transaction as early as possible which prove that
time is essence of the contract. Though the appellant-
Company relying on Clauses 3 and 4 of the Agreement
contended that the respondents failed to produce all the
required documents including the documents pertaining to
title and encumbrances and claims on or to the property, there
is no basis for such a claim.
12
9) It is also relevant to point out the stand of the parties as
reflected in their pleadings and evidence. In terms of Section
16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is incumbent on the
party, who wants to enforce the specific performance of a
contract, to aver and prove that he has performed or has
always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms
of the contract. Explanation appended to this sub-section (c)
makes it clear that if a contract involves the payment of
money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to
the defendant or to deposit in Court any money except when
so directed by the Court. However, the plaintiff must aver
performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the
contract according to its true construction. It is seen from the
pleadings that necessary averments have been made in terms
of sub-section (c) of Section 16. On the side of the plaintiff,
James Fadric was examined as PW-1. He explained the
urgency and the need to sell the property. He also explained
that the company had a cash crunch problem. No doubt, he
also referred that the company was facing liquidity
proceedings before the High Court of Bombay and necessary
13
application had been filed before the Company Court at
Bombay for settlement of the scheme to avoid liquidation
which we are not concerned. The fact remains that at the
relevant time, Vendor/Respondent-Company was in dire need
of money for their commercial transactions and decided to sell
the property in question, particularly, to meet the immediate
need of their creditors. We have already adverted to the
payment of Rs. 2 lakhs as advance on the date of execution of
the agreement dated 28.08.1981. On 21.09.1981, a further
sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid and by mutual consent, the time
was extended to 30.09.1981. On 06.10.1981, another sum of
Rs. 5 lakhs was advanced by the appellant-Company and the
time for completion of the Sale Agreement was extended up to
14.10.1981. Again, for the third time, that is on 19.12.1981,
time was extended for the completion of the transaction up to
31.12.1981 on payment of Rs.1,10,000/-. As rightly pointed
out by Shri K.K. Venugopal and Shri V. Giri, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents, the payment of money
in short intervals and also the extension of time for completion
of the transaction within the prescribed period clearly show
14
that both the parties wanted to complete the transaction as
early as possible without further extension. Inasmuch as the
Vendor was in dire need of money at every occasion and the
need for such short term extension clearly shows that the
parties intended to treat the time as essence of the contract. It
is also relevant to point out that Clause 7 of the Agreement,
which we have already extracted, makes it clear that at any
time of registration of the sale deed, the appellant shall pay a
sum of Rs. 50 lakhs, after deducting the advance amounts
already paid and the balance of Rs. 32 lakhs is to be paid after
registration of the sale deed in three installments as
mentioned above. This would also reveal the intention of the
parties to treat the time as essence of the contract. From the
various clauses in the Agreement for Sale which we have
referred to, pleadings, evidence and the conduct of the parties,
we hold that parties have agreed that the time is essence of
the contract and the same has to be adhered to strictly.
15
Readiness and willingness:
10) Learned counsel for the respondents urged that several
requests by the appellant-Company for various documents
which are not provided in the terms of the Agreement show
their intention that they wanted to delay the proceedings. On
the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Company submitted that they were justified in asking for
those documents in order to satisfy the title of the property. It
is true that in the Agreement, it is stated that Vendor has to
produce all the documents of title in their possession relating
to the property to the Purchaser for investigation relating to
title. In Clause 10, there is a specific reference to the
production of clearance certificate under Section 230-A of the
Income-tax Act and obtain permission or sanction from any
authorities that may be necessary for the purpose of sale of
the property. It is true that when the appellant-Company
being a Purchaser investing a huge sum of Rs. 82 lakhs, they
are entitled to clear all their doubts in respect of the title. In
terms of Clause 6 of the Agreement, sale has to be completed
on or before 05.09.1981 or within one week from the date of
16
furnishing the certificate under Section 230-A of the Income-
tax Act whichever is later and upon payment of Rs. 48 lakhs
out of the agreed amount of Rs. 82 lakhs to the Vendor.
Admittedly, the respondents produced Income-tax Clearance
Certificate even on 09.09.1981. It is to be noted that only after
production of I.T. Clearance, the appellant-Company, vide
letter dated 14.09.1981, addressed to Mr. K. S. Hari, General
Manager of the Respondent-Company sought further
particulars relating to mortgage on the Bank of India, arrears
of urban land tax, property tax, exemption certificate from the
urban land ceiling authorities, encumbrance certificate, latest
audited balance-sheet, list of creditors, solvency certificate,
details of attachment and particulars about winding up
proceedings alleging that they have not received the same to
be forwarded to their advocates. The said letter is available as
Annexure-P2. In pursuance of the said letter, the respondents
sent a reply on 15.09.1981 "by hand delivery" to the
appellant-Company specifically stating that after being fully
satisfied about the title, the appellant-Company prepared the
draft sale deed and after a combined discussion at their office
17
on 07.09.1981, the same was approved and thereafter, the
respondents obtained necessary certificate dated 09.09.1981
under Section 230-A of the Income-tax Act and the same was
also intimated to them. In the same letter, it was pointed out
that as per the Agreement of Sale and consensus arrived at
between the parties, the appellant-Company has to complete
the sale within one week from 09.09.1981. It was also pointed
out that in spite of several promises and assurances, the
appellant-Company could not fulfill their promise and also
that because of this delay, they are suffering heavy loss and
the very object of sale is being defeated. It was also pointed
out that so far they have spent heavy sums and satisfied all
their requirements and finally requested to do the needful
immediately for completion of the sale transaction. The said
letter is marked as Annexure-P3.
11) It is not in dispute, more particularly, from the evidence
of PW-1 that the legal advisor of the appellant-Company
scrutinized the title deeds before entering into Agreement.
They also visited the site along with their lawyers and finally
after satisfying all the materials, their lawyers gave opinion
18
with regard to the clear title of the property. As stated earlier,
only after getting their clearance, draft sale deed was prepared
to enable the respondents to get certificate under Section 230-
A of the Income-tax Act. Curiously, in his evidence, P.W.1 has
stated that the matter got delayed only due to the non-
production of exemption certificate from urban land ceiling
authorities. It is true that as per Clause 3 of the Agreement,
respondents have to produce all the documents pertaining to
the title of the suit property. We have already extracted
Clause 4 of the Agreement which speaks about the approval of
title by the appellant's advocate.
12) It is further seen that after payment of Rs. 2 lakhs as
advance on the date of execution of the Agreement, monies to
the extent of Rs. 11,10,000/- were paid on various dates in
order to satisfy and comply with all statutory requirements. It
is relevant to point out in the Agreement that there is no
specific reference to the production of an order from the
competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act with
regard to exemption. From the materials placed, we are
satisfied that the appellant-Company was not justified in
19
calling for several documents when admittedly, their lawyers
perused all the relevant documents and on their advise, draft
sale deed was prepared and that too after proper inspection of
the site and building. In other words, production of clearance
certificate from the competent authority under the Urban Land
Ceiling Act was not specifically intended at any point of time.
We are satisfied that as rightly argued by learned senior
counsel for the respondents that the information sought for by
the appellant-Company was only to delay the transaction and
it was not always ready and willing to perform in terms of
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Conduct of the parties:
13) We have already stated that the Agreement for Sale
includes land and building. The building stands on more than
500 sq. mts. of land in addition to the plinth area. The
building is a five-storeyed one for which building permission
had been obtained as per the provisions of Town Planning
Authority and as per the orders of the Corporation of Madras.
It is also seen that the building was under construction at the
time the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Ordinance, 1976
20
was passed. Section 3(h) of the Act defines "land appurtenant"
which reads thus:
"(h) "land appurtenant", in relation to any building means an
extent of five hundred square metres contiguous to the land
occupied by such building and includes,-
(i) in the case of any building constructed before or under
construction on the commencement of this Act with a
dwelling unit therein, or
(ii) in the case of any building proposed to be constructed
with a dwelling unit therein and in respect of which the plan
for such building has been approved by the appropriate
authority before the commencement of this Act,
an additional extent not exceeding five hundred square
metres of land, if any, contiguous to the said extent of five
hundred square metres of land:
Provided that in relation to a multi-storeyed building,
the extent of land contiguous to the land occupied by such
multi-storeyed building permitted according to the plan
approved by the appropriate authority shall be deemed to be
the land appurtenant;"
It is not in dispute that the plan had been approved by the
Competent Authority.
14) As rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel for the
respondents, the proviso to the definition states that in the
case of multi-storeyed building, the extent of land contiguous
to the land occupied by such multi-storeyed building
permitted according to the plan approved by the appropriate
authority shall be deemed to be the land appurtenant. In view
21
of the same, the entirety of the land in and around the five-
storeyed building would come outside the vacant land under
Section 3 (p) of the Act which reads as under:
"(p) "Vacant land" means land, not being land mainly used
for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration
but does not include-
(i) .....
(ii) in an area where there are building regulations--
(a) the land occupied by any building constructed before, or
under construction on the commencement of this Act with
the approval of the appropriate authority and the land
appurtenant to such building. .... ....."
It is clear that in the case of multi-storeyed building which
was under construction at the date of commencement of the
Act with building plans duly approved, no part of the land
attached to the building would come within the scope of the
Act. By refusing to pay the balance consideration to purchase
the property by getting the sale deed registered, the appellant-
Company has not only committed a breach of the Agreement
but also showed that it was not ready and willing to complete
the Agreement. In those circumstances, the argument
assailing the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
is liable to be rejected.
22
About title inspection by the lawyers:
15) It is relevant to narrate the actual question and answers
by P.W.1 during cross-examination which reads as under:
"Q: Did you inspect the title deeds through your lawyer?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you examine the title deeds before entering into
the agreement?
A: We did get the title deeds examined by the lawyer.
Q: I asked you did you get any legal opinion from your
lawyer prior to entering into the agreement.
A: Yes.
Q: Have you got the legal opinion?
A: Not in writing asked him to examine the title deed and
let us know whether the title deed is in order.
Q: What did he say?
A: He said, the title deed normally could be in order, but
he had asked for certain other information such as
encumbrance certificates, Urban Land Ceiling
Clearance from the Government of India and
Government of Tamil Nadu, etc.
Q: Your office prepared any report on title.
A: My legal department always traces title, it is good and
competent to peruse the title deeds.
Q: Your legal department is your staff?
A: Yes.
Q: Was any report on title obtained from the lawyer?
23
A: Yes.
Q: When was that obtained?
A: Somewhere between 20th to 28.8.1981
Q: Have you produced the legal opinion before this Court?
A: No, it is internal affair and we felt it is not necessary.
Q: Have you got the opinion?
A: I am not sure, I am able to find out.
Q: Did they produce all documents of title for approval?
A: Yes. They fulfilled clause No.3
Q: Clause No.4 that also the defendant did not?
A: No.
Q: What do you mean by saying no?
A: Because they have not provided encumbrance to the
title deeds, which is part of the title deed, they had
applied for Urban Land Ceiling exemption, which they
have not disclosed.
Q: Is there any mention about Urban Land Ceiling
Clearance?
A: It is not mentioned in the agreement, but I would like
to and it is obligatory on the part of the defendant to
go through the implications of Section 6 of the Urban
Land Ceiling Act.
Q: According to you, unless they do not furnish details of
obtaining Urban Land Ceiling clearance, you are not
prepared to purchase?
A: No. This is the condition of the negotiation. The
vendor has always been acknowledging to produce the
documents required by us before we put through the
sale. This is also seen in all stamped receipts for
24
which monies were paid even after 230-A clearance
obtained."
16) It is also brought to our notice that the State Government
in 1995 nearly 10 years after the filing of the suit, claimed 872
sq.mts. as being the excess land above the ceiling limit for
which the appellant-Company had filed a writ petition being
No. 6312 of 2000 before the High Court. Though the filing of
the said writ petition and the ultimate order on 04.08.2005
were not brought to our notice by filing appropriate petition
inasmuch as the said fact was not in dispute, we referred to
the said decision of the High Court rendered in Writ Petition
No. 6312 of 2000. That writ petition came to be filed by the
respondent Company for issuance of a writ of mandamus to
forebear the State and the competent authority under the
Urban Land Ceiling from enforcing the provisions of the Act
which has been repealed by Tamil Nadu Act No. 20 of 1999
w.e.f. 16.06.1999 insofar as the land of the petitioner therein
(respondents herein at Door No. 46, Cathedral Road, Chennai
in R.S. No. 1238/9 Mylapore, Village) is concerned.
25
17) It is true that despite the fact that there was no provision
in the Act laying down the process for seeking an exemption
from its operation, the respondent-Company wrote to the
Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil
Nadu on 26.12.1979 seeking such exemption. As there was
no response, as rightly pointed out, it was understood that as
the proviso to Section 3 applies to the land and no further
exemption was needed. It is relevant to point out that the
appellant-Company made further applications on behalf of the
respondents but to no avail. The entire land is in the
enjoyment and possession of the respondent-Company and no
part of the land has been taken over by the Government.
18) In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to
agree with the claim of the appellant-Company, on the other
hand we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at
by the Division Bench of the High Court. Consequently, the
appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, parties are
directed to bear their own costs.
.................................................J.
26
(P. SATHASIVAM)
...............................................J.
(H. L. GOKHALE)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 16, 2011.
27
