JLPL under HC scanner

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 9

The allotment of industrial plots in Sector 82, Mohali, by Janta Land Promoters Limited (JLPL) has come under judicial scanner, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court issuing notice of motion on a petition, alleging absence of permissions and sanctions at the time of allotment.

The notice by Justice Sudip Ahluwalia came on the petition filed by an allottee-company, OHM Value Services Limited, through counsel Harmanjit S Sethi. Appearing before the Bench, Sethi contended that the JLPL had suppressed the fact of having not complied with pre-requisite of deposits required by the authorities.

Sethi said in such circumstances it could not be held summarily that the promoter from the inception, particularly at the time of its agreement dated June 24, 2005, with the petitioner, was not aware of the impossibility to stick to the time frame for completion of the project specified in the agreement. “As such, some element of deceit/cheating could not be entirely ruled out.”

Taking a note of the assertions, Justice Ahluwalia fixed August 29 as the next date of hearing in the matter.

In the petition, Sethi said the respondent-company, JLPL, at the time of the plot’s allotment to the petitioner-company was “not having any permission/sanction from any competent authority which would have allowed the sale of the industrial plots”. There was a deliberate and conscious effort to defraud and cheat the petitioner company.

“This fact was not disclosed to the petitioner at the time of entering into the agreement. Had the company known about the situation, it would not have entered the contract,” Sethi said.

He also asserted that the petitioner came to know later that plans had not been sanctioned and electric connection had not been given due to respondent company’s failure to pay the dues demanded by the PSIEC.

The petitioner requested the respondents to disclose the details of the project. They were also asked to specify whether permissions had been sought and granted by the competent authority. It was added that the payments schedule prescribed in the letter of allotment should not be enforced in case necessary permissions had not been obtained.

But the respondent firm wriggled out of its obligation to provide detailed information to the petitioner regarding the sanction and clearances. Rather, it hit upon a plan to initiate penal action against the petitioner. The respondent in order to hide the fraud played with the petitioner cancelled the allotment, Sethi said.

The respondents then allotted the plot to another person.