Wtc Noida Development Company Limited v. State Of Punjab And Others
! "#"$%"&'(
) ) $'('*(+"&'( ))
',&- "%".'/0"(1'0/-(23,0,1"& 4)"1,1,'("$ 5"$#*# 61-1"'7*(8-9-(&1:"$# )))))"#/'(&"(1# ;3 )633 ;3 )65< 3
!
"# ! "# !! $ %& '''' 5< 3=) ( ) * #!! +!# !! !# !!# ! +
, !! #!!*
!
"
# $
%#&& ' ( )*+ ,-. / , " $ ' /-$0 1'
-
2 3+ 45#&%#&6 $
7 *8' -
)
9*
-2- '
# # 4&#&:#&4;
# # &:#&8#&4;< '
=
$= '
-* /
-
=
- 4 >
#64 66 && &&&>*< '
*48
- /
- ?
1-4 ,
9 . @7
!
,
$' "
#6 &&
6#&6#&&> *6
>
> >
-
$-
> , '
# ##4;#&6#&& - A
&#&;#&& $
7 *66' 4&#&:#&& $
7 *65' &%#&6#&4 $
7 *6;' 6#&8#&4 $
7 *6' 4&#&4#& $
7 *6:' -
&4#&6#&< - %#&5#&4$
7 *6%' - ?
1-4
#B
! "
#:: &4$2C'
&:#&6#&<
-3- '
-
4#&6#&6 45#&%#&6
# #
-
-
7
< '
< '
-
3+<
"
#; $'
&:#&8#&4; $
7 *'<
A
-
- ?
1-4
#D % + # $ %*
.
! -! / .
0 *(/ !! ! 1 !
$ . !/ *
!(2 %2(4 +! !#
-4- ! !$ % 5 ! *- ! . 6 !7/ !!!23 %2(4.
0 *%/
!!₹(&(&&222221*.(&(&&!/
₹%558%92221*!! # * ) #!52: ; (249!<2 .₹(2429<22221*/ = # ! (2:#
92 !!! (2!= !! >(%: ! !!! & ) ! * (3 %2(4 ! ! ## *
#
29 2< %2(9 ? !33 # +.
+/ ! $@, # ! !# 48 3 < +
! " ! ! * ! %< %2(8 .
0 *(2/ ? * ! ! !! ! !!(9 2& %2%&.
0 *%4/
#
! # * -
! #
!! (2 2< %2%&.
0 *%3/ ) ! # , # *%;&%*&6 ) %< 2< %2%&.
0 *%5/#,* !!
!
! !
! # )
! #
!! (< %2%& !
-5- .
0 *%8/ ! !!#
*
, # ) # ,* %( %2%& !! * ,
4&#&:#&4; A
% ₹464 66 && &&&>* =
$= ' 49
&:#&8#&4; $
7 *'# E
=
- F496
&4#&4#&4$ "
#%%'# -
-/
=
- ;8#:
::
4;#44#&4$
7 *5'#
-
&;#&%#& $
7 *4%' -
) 7
*48
#E
/
4&#&%#& $
7 *4'#
4#&6#&6 $
7 *;'
-
-
4%
4&G
#E
-
)
*%;&%*&6 5#&5#&6$
7 *%'
-6-
#
45#&%#&6 $
7 *8'
-
₹45#;& :
₹4:#:8 -
- 4&
#E
-
#
,
=
8#&%#&6$
7 *6&'
A -
=
-
5& #
₹46 -
# # H
# , - 3 !2 -
-
*
-
* A # ?
-
)
-
-
4&#&8#&6
#
)
₹4:#:8
,
&6
)
* )
-7-
8#&%#&6 $
7 *6&' 4& # /
,#&6#D ) %( %2%& ! # !!₹17.79 Crores was not deposited within the stipulated time. Detailed arguments were addressed by learned counsel representing the parties after which, this Court passed the following order on 07.11.2023:
#4:#:8
# !
,
-
-
-
A
-
#?
- -
#4% I- "
#%8:;;J
@ 2 3+
#
,
45%
-
#
#?
- -
- -
#46
#
,
,#&6 - -
- #, -3 !2
-8-
#
>
A
= #
A
-
# $ #4% ' -
,
0)K1# ) -
-
, ,
4 &6
,
&6
#
,
)
# !
,
-
,
5$4' /-
E
+
488; &6#44#&6 ,
5 $4'$' -
#
, - &6#44#&6 $-'
6&
- /
-
)# /
&4#4#&6#D ) # " = ! ! ,
-9- (% (% %2%& # 1!# ) # !1 ! ! (< %2%& # !# ) (% (% %2%& !
,
-
45 &6$ *8' > -
, $?
'
# ?
-
>
- # E -
,
"
# 6 - - /
-
# /
4;#&4#&5#D @ " (4 2( %2%< ! ! "# # ! ! !!
A !! (4 2( %2%<
4#4#&6
,
"
# 6-
*
, $?
'
#?
-
#
-10E
-
,
# ?
)
# /
4#&4#&5#D (2 B ! ! * #! !! ,*(8 ! B ! # * !! #! # ! !
# ! !! B ! ! # * !
0!₹%2! #! B ! # # (( ! ! "# #
* ! (< %2%& #
!! # ! + # , ,
! !
* #
* !
B ! # # (% C ! )
## !(< %2%& .*%8/ ) !! $'E
-
#45#;& :
#4:#:8 # #4:#:8 -
-
4&
4
-11-
4&#&8#&6
# $' *
-
>
- -
# $'
* -
#$'
@ 2 $ ' 3+-
-
)
# $'
-
>
#D#
! ! ₹124.50 Crores was to be paid in seven installments starting from 10.09.2023. As against this, only a sum of ₹18 Crores was paid in compliance of the orders passed by this Court. Eventually, after efforts of amicable settlement had been made but the same had failed, four more installments had become due by 15.01.2024 i.e. the installments due as on 10.10.2023, 10.11.2023, 10.12.2023 and 10.01.2024. Admittedly, the petitionercompany has to pay more than ₹100 Crores to the respondents and, as mentioned, by 15.01.2024, more than ₹70 Crores had become due. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner-company neither honoured the order dated 14.08.
2023 as per which, resumption of the site would become operative in case of failure to deposit nor did it make the payments after this Court had taken cognizance of the matter and even the State of Punjab had made all out efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement.
-12- + , D # !
33! 5< 3! "#"$%"&'(
) ) $'('*(+"&'( ))