Skip to content


Chandigarh Paper Board Mills Private Limited Vs. Chief Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1371 of 1972
Judge
Reported in1982(2)SCALE1104a; (1982)3SCC507; 1982(14)LC874(SC)
AppellantChandigarh Paper Board Mills Private Limited
RespondentChief Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh and ors.
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.sections 304 part ii & 201:[dr.arijit pasayat, dr.mukundakam sharma & h.l. dattu,jj] culpable homicide - deceased who was addicted to alcohol, picked up quarrel, assaulted main accused and tried to pull her sari - main accused dealt fatal blow with iron rod on head of deceased and other accused buried his body - extra judicial confession by main accused and circumstance of recovery of dead body established guilt of accused persons held, conviction of accused persons is proper. however, effect and relevance of section 360 cr.p.c. vis--vis main accused, a woman, was not considered by trial court and high court. matter therefore remanded for deciding said issue. .....favour of the appellant says that the transferee, that is to say, the appellant, shall not use the site sold to him for a purpose other than an industrial purpose and further that he shall not use the construction on it for a purpose other than for which it has been constructed, except in accordance with the rules made under the capital of punjab (development and regulations) act, 1952. there is no doubt that what was intended by this clause was that the site sold to the appellant shall not be used by him for a commercial purpose as contradistinguished from an industrial purpose, that is to say, that he shall use it for the purpose of his own industry or business but not for any other purpose. it is common ground that the appellant has constructed a weighing bridge on the site sold to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Clause (9) of the conveyance dated November 4, 1958 which was executed by the State of Punjab in favour of the appellant says that the transferee, that is to say, the appellant, shall not use the site sold to him for a purpose other than an industrial purpose and further that he shall not use the construction on it for a purpose other than for which it has been constructed, except in accordance with the rules made under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952. There is no doubt that what was intended by this clause was that the site sold to the appellant shall not be used by him for a commercial purpose as contradistinguished from an industrial purpose, that is to say, that he shall use it for the purpose of his own industry or business but not for any other purpose. It is common ground that the appellant has constructed a weighing bridge on the site sold to him and he is allowing members of the general public to use that weighing bridge on payment. He was entitled to construct the weighing bridge and to use it for his own purposes but to the extent that he allows the members of the general public to use it, he has violated the terms of Clause (9).

2. The impugned order, therefore, by which the appellant is called upon to discontinue the user of the weighing bridge for any purpose save his own is valid and no exception can be taken to it. The judgment of the High Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //