Petition dismissed for misleading court about transfer fee waiver approval in Kharagpur land dispute

The Calcutta HC dismissed a petition challenging notices issued by WBIDC demanding transfer fees for Kharagpur land. Petitioners sought declaration that they were not liable to pay transfer fees and mandamus to cancel the notices. The court held that petitioners misled the court by claiming waiver of transfer fees was approved by NCLT, NCLAT and SC, when clause 15.15.5 of the Resolution Plan regarding waiver was not approved by any forum. The court ruled that change in shareholding does not constitute transfer of leasehold interest requiring permission fees, but found the impugned notices were in conformity with Resolution Plan terms as no exemption was sought from appropriate authorities prior to notice issuance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Validity of the demand for transfer fees by WBIDC.
3. Interpretation of the Resolution Plan and its clauses.
4. Alleged misrepresentation by the petitioners.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition:
The petitioners claimed that the demand for transfer fees was in violation of the orders passed by NCLT, NCLAT, and the Supreme Court. However, the judgment clarified that the petitioners misrepresented the facts and orders from these judicial forums. The court emphasized that the petitioners attempted to mislead the court by misconstruing the orders, which is a serious issue as per the Supreme Court's stance on such practices. Therefore, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable.

2. Validity of the demand for transfer fees by WBIDC:
The petitioners contended that they were not liable to pay any transfer fees as per the approved Resolution Plan. However, the court noted that clause 15.15.5 of the Resolution Plan, which sought waiver of transfer fees, was not approved by the NCLT, NCLAT, or the Supreme Court. The court held that since this clause was not approved, WBIDC was within its rights to demand the transfer fee of Rs. 6,45,66,626/-.

3. Interpretation of the Resolution Plan and its clauses:
The court examined clause 15.15.5 of the Resolution Plan, which sought to transfer the lease without any fee, consideration, or premium. The adjudicating authority (NCLT) had approved the Resolution Plan with modifications, specifically excluding the waiver of transfer fees. This decision was upheld by NCLAT and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the court concluded that the demand for transfer fees by WBIDC was valid and in conformity with the terms of the Resolution Plan.

4. Alleged misrepresentation by the petitioners:
The court found that the petitioners had misrepresented the orders of the NCLT, NCLAT, and the Supreme Court to make it appear that the waiver of transfer fees was approved. This misrepresentation was deemed an attempt to mislead the court, which is strongly discouraged by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition on this ground as well.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the demand for transfer fees by WBIDC was valid and in accordance with the terms of the Resolution Plan. The petitioners' attempt to misrepresent judicial orders and mislead the court was also a significant factor in the dismissal. No order as to costs was made, and the allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted due to the absence of an affidavit.

---