When can unearned income be demanded on a merger?

The Delhi High Court examined a case where a company applied to convert its industrial plot from leasehold to freehold. The company had paid the initial conversion fee and an additional demand. However, the respondent (DDA) later issued a further demand for 'unearned income'. The court's decision clarifies the circumstances under which such demands can be made during the conversion process.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 06.08.2020
Judgment Pronounced on: 26.04.2021

W.P.(C) 2993/2017 & CM APPL. 13112/2017

VIPUL PLASTIC AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES

PVT LTD ... Petitioner

Through Mr.Udit Gupta, Mr.Manan Aggarwal
and Mr.Aditya, Advs.

versus

DDA ... Respondent

Through Ms.Ruhi Chopra, Adv. for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (JUDGMENT)

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned demand dated 08.11.2016 raised by the respondent for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold. A direction is also sought to the respondent to execute the Conveyance Deed of the plot in question, namely, plot No.53, Wazirpur Group Industrial Area, ad-measuring 400 sq.yards in favour of the petitioner company.

2. The petitioner is said to be a Private Limited Company incorporated in 1977. On 02.09.1976, a Perpetual Lease Agreement was entered into between M/s. Jayna Plastic Works through its proprietor Mr.Vir Anil Jain and the Hon’ble President of India acting through the respondent for leasing of the industrial plot No. A-53, Wazirpur Group Industrial Area, Delhi- 110052 (hereinafter referred to as “the property”). On 30.09.1977, the said M/s. Jayna Plastic Works through its proprietor applied for conversion of the property from M/s. Jayna Plastic Works to the petitioner company i.e. Vipul Plastic and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. In 1978 the subscription of the equity shares of the petitioner was increased from 8 to 300 shares and the majority shares vested with the family of Shri Krishan Gopal Aggarwal including himself, wife, son and daughters and (HUF) who together held more than 80% shares in the petitioner company. In 1985 the number of shares of the petitioner company rose from 300 to 350 shares wherein some shares of the petitioner company were subscribed by the family members and some were subscribed by non-family members. However, the family of Shri Krishan Gopal Aggarwal continued to hold 80% shares in the petitioner company thus being in majority and in control of the petitioner company.

3. In September 2010, the respondent advertised a scheme for conversion of leasehold property to freehold property. On 30.09.2013 alongwith other required documents the petitioner made an application for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold and paid the prescribed fee of Rs. 5,28,846/-. Subsequently on 20.01.2014 an additional demand of Rs.2,00,111/- was made under various heads which were duly paid.

4. The respondent inspected the property on 28.04.2014 as per the procedure adopted for conversion of plot from leasehold to freehold. On inspection they found the property to be in order and free from all kinds of misuse/sub-letting.

To know more in details find the attachment file