Liquidator barred from selling plot

The Supreme Court has ruled that possession of a plot given to a company for a limited purpose would not create any interest or right in its favour. The Andhra Pradesh High Court view to the contrary was set aside in the appeal, APII Corporation Ltd vs Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. Government-owned APII Corporation allotted plots for setting up industries to different persons on certain conditions. Team-Asia got a plot for which an amount had to be paid to the corporation. It was given possession for a limited purpose and allowed possession. The company could not pay the amount within the prescribed time and therefore the part amount already paid was forfeited. The company later went into liquidation and the official liquidator wanted to take back possession of the plot and sell it. The government corporation moved the company court against it, but its petition was dismissed. It appealed to the Supreme Court. While quashing the high court order, the Supreme Court stated that the plot in question did not belong to the company in liquidation and the official liquidator had no right to deal with it or dispose of it. The corporation can deal with the plot according to its own policy, the judgment said.


Petrol pump can't replace park
An urban site earmarked for civic amenities like public park or playground cannot be changed and given to run a petrol pump in a crowded residential area, the Supreme Court stated while dismissing the appeal of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The high court had quashed allotment of a site in Bangalore for a BPCL outlet allowing a public interest petition by some residents. The government company appealed to the Supreme Court arguing, among other things, that petrol pump is a civic amenity, according to a notification. The Supreme Court rejected all the arguments and said that the state law did not allow the Bangalore Development Authority to convert areas reserved for civic amenities for activities which did not fall within the definition of civic amenities.

National Consumer Commission powers
Once the finding of facts by a district consumer forum is accepted by the National Commission, it cannot change the order of compensation, the Supreme Court stated in the appeal Momna vs regional manager. In this case, a handicapped woman bought a three-wheeler which continually broke down despite repairs to the chassis. The district forum asked the manufacturer to replace the vehicle. On appeal, the national commission changed the order to replacing the chassis only. The Supreme Court ruled that the national commission transgressed its jurisdiction.