The case of Aman Semi-Conductors (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2023 INSC 172) pertains to the resumption of an industrial plot allotment by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) due to the appellant's failure to comply with the stipulated conditions of allotment. The appellant, Aman Semi-Conductors, a proprietary concern, applied for an industrial plot in Industrial State Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, in 1994. After fulfilling initial procedural requirements, the plot was allotted to the appellant in 1995 with specific conditions, including the timely commencement and completion of construction for an industrial unit. The appellant failed to adhere to these conditions, leading HSIDC to resume the plot. The subsequent legal tussle traversed through the District Forum, State Commission, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), and eventually reached the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, reviewed the appeals filed by Aman Semi-Conductors against the orders of the NCDRC. The NCDRC had previously allowed HSIDC's revision petition, concluding that the appellant's reasons for non-compliance were insufficient and lacked concrete evidence of steps taken to establish the industrial unit. The Court scrutinized the adherence to the conditions stipulated in the allotment agreement and found that the appellant had failed to initiate any meaningful action towards setting up the proposed manufacturing unit. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decision to resume the plot allotment by HSIDC and directed the corporation to refund the sum paid by the appellant with interest.

The judgment extensively referenced the precedent set in Indu Kakkar v. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 37. In this case, the Supreme Court had previously upheld the resumption of a plot allotment due to the appellant's failure to comply with the conditions of allotment. The Clause 6 of the current agreement bore similarity to the clauses in the Indu Kakkar case, reinforcing the validity of HSIDC's actions. Additionally, the Court referred to Managing Director, Haryana Industrial Development Corporation v. Hari Om Enterprises (2009) 16 SCC 208, which emphasized the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice in the allotment and resumption process.

The Court delved into the contractual obligations outlined in the allotment agreement between HSIDC and Aman Semi-Conductors. Key provisions included the initiation of construction within six months, completion of construction within one and a half years, and commencement of production within two years. Failure to comply with these conditions legitimized HSIDC's right to resume the plot. The appellant's consistent inability to demonstrate progress, respond substantively to show-cause notices, and comply with infrastructural prerequisites underscored the breach of contractual terms. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, particularly Section 11 and Section 31, which govern the conditions under which property interests can be created and terminated. The Court concluded that the conditions imposed by HSIDC were legally enforceable and that the appellant's non-compliance justified the resumption of the plot.

This judgment reinforces the sanctity of contractual obligations in industrial plot allotments and underscores the imperative for allottees to adhere strictly to stipulated conditions. It serves as a deterrent against speculative allotments where applicants might obtain plots without genuine intent to develop them. The decision clarifies that infrastructure deficiencies, unless explicitly accounted for in the agreement, do not absolve appellants of their responsibilities. Future cases involving plot allotment by industrial development corporations will likely reference this judgment to uphold the enforcement of allotment conditions and validate resumption actions in cases of non-compliance.

Resumption Order: A legal directive issued by an authority (in this case, HSIDC) to reclaim possession of a property or plot due to the allottee's failure to comply with the terms of allotment. Show Cause Notice: A formal notification requiring the recipient to provide justification or explanation for not fulfilling certain obligations or for alleged non-compliance. Transfer of Property Act, 1882: An Indian law that governs the transfer of property, detailing the rights and duties of the parties involved in property transactions. Key sections relevant here are Section 11 and Section 31, which deal with the creation and termination of interests in property based on conditions. Allotment Conditions: Specific requirements and timelines set forth by an allotting authority that the allottee must fulfill to retain possession and use of the allotted property. Natural Justice: Legal principles ensuring fairness in legal proceedings, including the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to present one's case before a decision is made.

The Supreme Court's judgment in Aman Semi-Conductors v. HSIDC underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding contractual obligations and enforcing conditions attached to property allotments. By validating HSIDC's resumption of the industrial plot, the Court emphasized the necessity for appellants to comply with stipulated terms diligently. This decision not only reinforces the legal framework governing industrial plot allotments but also serves as a precedent ensuring that industrial development objectives are met responsibly. Consequently, entities seeking industrial plots must exercise due diligence and genuine intent in their undertakings to foster economic growth and avoid legal repercussions.