# Logix Buildwell Private Limited v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 769
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-15
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 30137 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/logix-buildwell-private-limited-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52720
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Alok Mishra, C S.C., Kaushalendra Nath
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to : Whether the petitionerLogix Buildwell Private Limited-is entitled to
interest
on
the
refunded
amount
of
Rs.62,09,59,254/-, despite having furnished an
undertaking-cum-affidavit
dated
09.01.2023
stating that "the Company would not claim any
interest from the NOIDA Authority or initiate any
further action in this regard", and whether the
impugned order dated 06.03.2023 rejecting the
claim for interest warrants interference.

Headnotes
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Writ Jurisdiction - Contractual Matters -
Refund of deposit - Claim for Interest -
Effect
of
Undertaking
-
Petitioner
voluntarily submitted an undertakingcum-affidavit dated 09.01.2023 agreeing
that it "would not claim any interest" on
the refunded amount - NOIDA relied upon
this
solemn
assurance
and
released
Rs.62,09,59,254/- - Petitioner is estopped
from resiling - Contract - Allotment of Plot
- Scheme Terms - Refund without Interest
- Clause L of the Scheme 2010-11
expressly provides that refund, upon
surrender/cancellation,
is
"without
interest" - No contractual or statutory
right to claim interest - Waiver - Estoppel
-
Appropriation
and
Reprobation
-
Party cannot accept benefits based on an
undertaking and subsequently challenge
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same - Waiver clearly established
since petitioner knew its rights but
intentionally waived interest to secure
refund - Economic Duress - Plea Rejected
- Undertaking was not obtained under
coercion; duly executed by authorised
representative,
notarised,
with
verification - No unlawful pressure -
Conduct of Petitioner - Abuse of Process -
Petitioner repeatedly changed stands -
gave undertaking, applied for interest,
withdrew claim, then again raised interest
demand - demonstrating lack of bona
fides - Refund - Interest - Not a Matter of
Right
-
Money
deposited
was
part
consideration
for
allotment,
not
a
loan/investment
-
Scheme
did
not
contemplate payment of interest.

Held: No entitlement to interest arises from the
judgment dated 11.08.2022; para 22 merely
permitted the petitioner to move an application
which the authority was to consider "in
accordance with law" - Petitioner is bound by
the undertaking dated 09.01.2023 stating it
would not claim interest, which was acted upon
by NOIDA in refunding the full amount;
petitioner is now estopped - Scheme conditions
(Clause L) expressly stipulate refund "without
interest"; thus, no contractual/statutory basis
exists for claiming interest - Petitioner's conduct
lacks bona fides, involving inconsistent stands
and repeated attempts to seek interest after
expressly waiving it; amounts to abuse of
process - impugned order dated 06.03.2023 and
Item No. 18 of the 208th Board Meeting dated
28.12.2022
are
valid
-
writ
petition
dismissed.(Paras 6,7,8) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Kalpraj Dharamshi & Ors. v. Kotak Investment
Advisors Ltd. & Ors., (2021) 10 SCC 401;
Smt. Madhubala Jaiswal v. Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal, 2024 (9) ADJ 361; M.K. Shah
Engineers & Contractors v. State of M.P.,
(1992) 2 SCC 594; Kusheshwar Prasad Singh
v. State of Bihar and others, (2007) 11 SCC
447; Municipal Committee Katra & Ors. v.
Ashwani Kumar, [Civil Appeal No(s). 1497071 of 2017]

List of Acts
Constitution of India, Article 226; Companies
Act, 1956; Scheme 2010-11 (Commercial
Builders Plot-VI), NOIDA Authority - Terms &
Conditions (Clause L).

List of Keywords
undertaking-cum-affidavit;
refund
without
interest; economic duress; approbate and
reprobate; waiver; estoppel by conduct; scheme
of allotment; unjust enrichment; token amount;
non-payment of interest; commercial plot
allotment

Case Arising From
Writ C No. 30137 of 2023, Logix Buildwell
Private Limited v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
challenging:
Order dated 06.03.2023 of Respondent No.3
(NOIDA), and
Item No. 18 of the 208th Board Meeting dated
28.12.2022, regarding non-payment of interest
on refu

## Text

_Characters 0–39,863 of 56,080. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39863 for what follows._

10 All. Logix Buildwell Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
769
ground to grant the relief as prayed for and
dismissed all the writ petitions. Hon'ble the
Apex Court in Khatoon's case (supra) had
also held that the Appellants have neither
any legal right and nor any factual
foundation to claim the relief of allotment
of additional developed abadi plot. It is also
not in dispute that the State paid all
statutory compensation, which is payable
under the Act, to every landowners. Not
only that every landowner also got
additional compensation at the rate of
64.70% over and above what was payable
to them under the Act. The reliefs in the
case of Gajraj (supra) were confined only
to the landowners, who had filed the writ
petition. Even the Supreme Court in Savitri
Devi's case (Supra) held that the directions
given be not treated as precedent for being
adopted to other cases in future and they be
treated as confined to that case only.

31. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is clear that the
petitioners do not have any vested right to
claim the benefit of parity and they are not
entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them in
these writ petitions. The 10% developed
land cannot be allowed to them, in view of
law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Savitri Devi (supra) and Khatoon
(supra), wherein, it has been clearly held
that the petitioners have neither any legal
right nor any factual foundation to claim
the relief of allotment of additional
developed abadi land and therefore, no
benefit can be granted to the petitioners.

32. Accordingly, all the writ petitions
are dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 769
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 30137 of 2023

Logix Buildwell Private Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pankaj Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Alok Mishra, C S.C., Kaushalendra Nath
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to : Whether the petitionerLogix Buildwell Private Limited-is entitled to
interest
on
the
refunded
amount
of
Rs.62,09,59,254/-, despite having furnished an
undertaking-cum-affidavit
dated
09.01.2023
stating that "the Company would not claim any
interest from the NOIDA Authority or initiate any
further action in this regard", and whether the
impugned order dated 06.03.2023 rejecting the
claim for interest warrants interference.

Headnotes
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Writ Jurisdiction - Contractual Matters -
Refund of deposit - Claim for Interest -
Effect
of
Undertaking
-
Petitioner
voluntarily submitted an undertakingcum-affidavit dated 09.01.2023 agreeing
that it "would not claim any interest" on
the refunded amount - NOIDA relied upon
this
solemn
assurance
and
released
Rs.62,09,59,254/- - Petitioner is estopped
from resiling - Contract - Allotment of Plot
- Scheme Terms - Refund without Interest
- Clause L of the Scheme 2010-11
expressly provides that refund, upon
surrender/cancellation,
is
"without
interest" - No contractual or statutory
right to claim interest - Waiver - Estoppel
-
Appropriation
and
Reprobation
-
Party cannot accept benefits based on an
undertaking and subsequently challenge
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same - Waiver clearly established
since petitioner knew its rights but
intentionally waived interest to secure
refund - Economic Duress - Plea Rejected
- Undertaking was not obtained under
coercion; duly executed by authorised
representative,
notarised,
with
verification - No unlawful pressure -
Conduct of Petitioner - Abuse of Process -
Petitioner repeatedly changed stands -
gave undertaking, applied for interest,
withdrew claim, then again raised interest
demand - demonstrating lack of bona
fides - Refund - Interest - Not a Matter of
Right
-
Money
deposited
was
part
consideration
for
allotment,
not
a
loan/investment
-
Scheme
did
not
contemplate payment of interest.

Held: No entitlement to interest arises from the
judgment dated 11.08.2022; para 22 merely
permitted the petitioner to move an application
which the authority was to consider "in
accordance with law" - Petitioner is bound by
the undertaking dated 09.01.2023 stating it
would not claim interest, which was acted upon
by NOIDA in refunding the full amount;
petitioner is now estopped - Scheme conditions
(Clause L) expressly stipulate refund "without
interest"; thus, no contractual/statutory basis
exists for claiming interest - Petitioner's conduct
lacks bona fides, involving inconsistent stands
and repeated attempts to seek interest after
expressly waiving it; amounts to abuse of
process - impugned order dated 06.03.2023 and
Item No. 18 of the 208th Board Meeting dated
28.12.2022
are
valid
-
writ
petition
dismissed.(Paras 6,7,8) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Kalpraj Dharamshi & Ors. v. Kotak Investment
Advisors Ltd. & Ors., (2021) 10 SCC 401;
Smt. Madhubala Jaiswal v. Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal, 2024 (9) ADJ 361; M.K. Shah
Engineers & Contractors v. State of M.P.,
(1992) 2 SCC 594; Kusheshwar Prasad Singh
v. State of Bihar and others, (2007) 11 SCC
447; Municipal Committee Katra & Ors. v.
Ashwani Kumar, [Civil Appeal No(s). 1497071 of 2017]

List of Acts
Constitution of India, Article 226; Companies
Act, 1956; Scheme 2010-11 (Commercial
Builders Plot-VI), NOIDA Authority - Terms &
Conditions (Clause L).

List of Keywords
undertaking-cum-affidavit;
refund
without
interest; economic duress; approbate and
reprobate; waiver; estoppel by conduct; scheme
of allotment; unjust enrichment; token amount;
non-payment of interest; commercial plot
allotment

Case Arising From
Writ C No. 30137 of 2023, Logix Buildwell
Private Limited v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
challenging:
Order dated 06.03.2023 of Respondent No.3
(NOIDA), and
Item No. 18 of the 208th Board Meeting dated
28.12.2022, regarding non-payment of interest
on refunded amount.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant / Petitioner:
Shri H.N. Singh, Senior Counsel
Shri Pankaj Dubey
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Counsel (for
NOIDA)
Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Shri Ambrish Shukla, Additional Chief Standing
Counsel

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Pankaj
Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Shri Kaushalendra
Nath Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent
Nos.2
and
3
-
NOIDA
Authority and Shri Ambrish Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State-respondent No.1.

A. PRAYER:
10 All. Logix Buildwell Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
771

2. The writ petitioner - Logix
Buildwell Private Limited1, a company
incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956, and engaged in the
business of real estate development in the
National Capital Region of India, has
approached this Court by invoking its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying, inter alia, for
the following reliefs:

"i. To issue a Writ, order or
direction in the nature of CERTIORARI,
calling the records and quashing the
impugned order dated 06.03.2023 passed
by Respondent no. 3. (Annexure No. 5 of
the Writ Petition).

ii. To issue a Writ, order or
direction in the nature of CERTIORARI,
calling the records and quashing the
impugned Item no. 18 of 208th Board
meeting dated 28.12.2022 so far its related
to non-payment of interest. (Annexure No.
9 of the Writ Petition).

iii. To issue a Writ, order or
direction in the nature of MANDMUS
commanding the Respondents Authority to
pay the interest @ 14% on amount
deposited by the petitioner."

B. FACTS OF THE CASE:-

3. It transpires from the record that in
the year 2011, Respondent No. 2, i.e. the
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority, invited sealed tenders under a
two-bid system for the allotment of
commercial plots on lease for a period of
90 years on an "as is where is" basis. The
petitioner submitted its bid for Plot No. 4,
Block-CC, Sector 32, Scheme No. 2010-11
(Commercial
Builders
Plot-VI),
and
deposited an earnest money of Rs.10
crores. The petitioner emerged as the
highest bidder at Rs.1,11,250/- per square
meter, resulting in a total premium of
Rs.556.25 crores for the 50,000-squaremeter plot. The allotment terms required
the petitioner to deposit 10% of the
premium within 90 days, adjusted against
the earnest money, with the remaining 90%
payable in 16 half-yearly installments. The
lease deed and possession were to be
provided within 180 days of allotment.

3.1. As it was alleged that the NOIDA
Authority failed to provide the checklist
and execute the lease deed, thereby
hindering
the
petitioner
from
taking
possession and arranging finance for its
project, the petitioner-company approached
this Court by preferring Writ-C No. 8923
of 2022 (Logix Buildwell Private Limited
vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) with a prayer
to quash the order dated 12.03.2021 issued
by the NOIDA Authority whereby the
allotment was cancelled and initial token
money was forfeited and further to direct
the refund of the allotment money of over
Rs.62 crores with interest. It was contended
on behalf of the petitioner that the
cancellation and forfeiture were unjust, as
the NOIDA Authority failed to discharge
its contractual obligations, rendering the
project unviable. The NOIDA Authority,
on the other hand, contended that the
petitioner had not complied with certain
procedural requirements and claimed that it
was entitled to forfeit the amounts in terms
of the allotment.

3.2. The Division Bench, applying the
principles of legitimate expectation and
public trust, held that NOIDA's conduct
amounted to unjust enrichment. The
Authority failed to act reasonably and in
good faith, thereby depriving the petitioner
of its rights despite deposit of token
amount. The writ petition was allowed on
11.08.2022; the cancellation order dated
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12.03.2021, passed by the Deputy General
Manager (Commercial) under which the
deposited amount was forfeited, was set
aside. NOIDA Authority was directed to
refund Rs.62,09,59,254/- within 45 days,
leaving the question of interest open to be
decided on a separate application. For
ready reference, Paras 21 and 22 of the
order dated 11.08.2022 are reproduced
below:

"21.
Accordingly,
the
writ
petition is allowed. The order dated
12.3.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3Deputy General Manager (Commercial),
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority, NOIDA, so far as it forfeits the
amount deposited by the petitioners in
respect of the plot No. CC-4, Sector-32,
NOIDA, is set aside. The respondent No. 2-
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority, NOIDA is directed to refund the
amount of Rs.62,09,59,254/- within 45 days
from the date of service of certified copy of
this order before it.

22. So far as the interest part is
concerned, at this stage, we are not passing
any order, leaving it open to the petitioner
to prefer an appropriate application before
the competent authority of the respondent.
In the eventuality of such an application
being filed, it is expected from the authority
to
pass
appropriate
orders
after
considering all aspects of the matter
strictly, in accordance with law."

3.3. Thereafter, in compliance with the
judgment and order dated 11.08.2022, the
NOIDA Authority, in its 208th Board
Meeting convened on 28.12.2022, decided
to refund the token money/ deposited
amount. After considering legal advice, it
was further resolved that the aforesaid
judgment dated 11.08.2022 would not be
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and that the amount earlier forfeited
may
be
released.
Consequently,
the
petitioner, through an application dated
30.01.2023, raised a claim for interest.
However, vide letter dated 14.02.2023, the
petitioner-company withdrew its earlier
application dated 30.01.2023, clarifying
that the demand for interest had been made
on the wrong advice of an advocate. In
view of the letter dated 14.02.2023, the
NOIDA Authority accepted the claim for
refund and, by order dated 06.03.2023,
informed the petitioner that the token
amount
deposited
by
the
petitionercompany was being returned. The order
dated 06.03.2023 alongwith the decision
dated 28.12.2022 taken in 208th Board
meeting is under challenge in the instant
writ petition.

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF PETITIONERS:

4. Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Shri Pankaj Dubey,
learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced
the following comprehensive submissions
on behalf of the petitioner-company:

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that the impugned action of the NOIDA
Authority
constitutes
a
flagrant
and
impermissible attempt to modify, vary, and
override
the
clear
and
unambiguous
directions issued by this Hon'ble Court vide
order dated 11.08.2022. The Division
Bench of this Court, after elaborate hearing
and consideration of all relevant facts and
circumstances, had directed the NOIDA
Authority
to
refund the
amount
of
Rs.62,09,59,254/- within 45 days. This
direction was categorical, unconditional,
and left no room for the Authority to attach
any additional terms, conditions, or riders
to the refund. However, in complete
10 All. Logix Buildwell Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
773
disregard of the Court's order, the Board of
NOIDA Authority, in its 208th Board
Meeting held on 28.12.2022, took upon
itself to add an extraneous condition by
requiring the petitioner to furnish an
undertaking that no claim for interest
would be made in future and that no further
litigation would be initiated.

4.2. It was vehemently argued that the
NOIDA Authority had no legal authority,
jurisdiction, or power to modify, alter,
supplement, or add conditions to an order
passed by this Hon'ble Court. If the
Authority was aggrieved by any aspect of
the Court's order or felt that certain
conditions should have been incorporated,
the
only
legally
permissible
course
available was to approach this Court
through a formal modification application
under the relevant rules, or to prefer an
appeal before the appropriate higher forum,
however the NOIDA Authority chose to do
neither.

4.3. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the petitioner-company
found itself in an extremely difficult and
coercive situation. The company had
already suffered immense financial losses
and hardship on account of the Authority's
failure to execute the lease deed and hand
over possession despite the petitioner
having
deposited
substantial
amounts
totaling over Rs.62 crores. The company
was in dire need of funds for its ongoing
business operations and to mitigate the
cascading
losses
arising
from
the
Authority's defaults. When the Authority
made
the
refund
conditional
upon
furnishing an undertaking waiving all
claims to interest, the petitioner was left
with no practical choice but to comply,
however reluctantly and under protest.

4.4. It was emphasized that the
undertaking dated 09.01.2023 was not
given voluntarily or with free consent, but
was extracted under economic duress and
compulsion
of
circumstances.
The
petitioner-company
was
placed
in
a
situation where refusing to give the
undertaking would have meant indefinite
delay in receiving even the principal
amount that had been directed to be
refunded by this Court. Given the acute
financial stress and the urgent need for
funds, the petitioner felt compelled to sign
the undertaking as a matter of necessity,
not
choice.
This
undertaking,
being
obtained
under
such
coercive
circumstances, cannot be treated as a
voluntary
waiver
of
the
petitioner's
legitimate right to claim interest.

4.5.
Furthermore,
learned
Senior
Counsel pointed out that even after
submitting the undertaking, the NOIDA
Authority did not release the funds
immediately. There were further delays,
adding to the petitioner's distress and
financial burden. In this backdrop, the
petitioner-company, through its letter dated
30.01.2023, sought to assert its claim for
interest,
which
was
its
legitimate
entitlement. However, facing continued
pressure and uncertainty regarding the
release of funds, the petitioner was once
again
compelled
to
withdraw
that
application vide letter dated 14.02.2023,
stating that it was sent by mistake. This
sequence of events clearly demonstrates the
vulnerable and pressurized position in
which the petitioner found itself, and the
manner in which the Authority exploited
this vulnerability to extract concessions that
were
neither
legally
warranted
nor
contemplated by this Court's order.
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4.6. Learned Senior Counsel strongly
contended that the actions of the NOIDA
Authority, particularly the decision taken in
the 208th Board Meeting to attach
conditions to the refund, amount to
contempt of court. When this Hon'ble Court
directs a party to take certain action, that
party is bound to comply with the letter and
spirit of the order. The Authority cannot
pick and choose which parts of the order to
comply with, nor can it add its own terms
and conditions for the compliance. By
requiring an undertaking as a precondition
for refund, the Authority effectively
modified the Court's order, which is a
direct and serious violation of judicial
authority.

4.7. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the impugned order dated
06.03.2023, whereby the Authority finally
communicated that no interest would be
payable, was passed in blatant disregard of
paragraph 22 of this Court's order dated
11.08.2022. The Court had specifically
kept the question of interest open and had
expected the Authority to consider any
application
for
interest
"strictly
in
accordance with law." However, instead of
examining the claim on its legal merits, the
Authority simply took refuge behind the
undertaking that it had itself extracted
under duress, and mechanically rejected the
claim. This approach defeats the very
purpose and intent of this Court's direction
and renders paragraph 22 meaningless.

4.8.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
vehemently submitted that on the merits,
the petitioner-company is fully entitled to
interest on the deposited amount. The
petitioner had deposited substantial sums
aggregating to over Rs.62 crores with the
NOIDA Authority in good faith, expecting
that
the
Authority
would fulfill
its
contractual obligations by executing the
lease deed and handing over possession of
the plot within the stipulated time.
However, the Authority failed to discharge
these fundamental obligations, thereby
keeping the petitioner's money without any
lawful basis or justification.

4.9. It was argued that the retention of
such large amounts without executing the
contract or delivering the plot amounts to
unjust enrichment on the part of the
Authority. The petitioner has been deprived
of the use and benefit of its own funds for a
period exceeding a decade. During this
period, the petitioner could have deployed
these funds in other business ventures or
investments, earning returns and interest.
The denial of interest would mean that the
Authority gets to use the petitioner's money
at zero cost, while the petitioner bears the
entire opportunity cost and consequential
losses. This is manifestly unjust and
inequitable.

4.10. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the NOIDA Authority's
repeated failures, i.e. failure to provide the
checklist for execution of lease deed,
failure to execute the lease deed itself,
failure to hand over possession, and failure
to refund the amounts promptly even after
Court's direction, have caused severe
prejudice, harm, and financial losses to the
petitioner-company. The petitioner has
suffered not only direct monetary losses but
also
loss
of
business
opportunities,
reputational damage, and adverse impacts
on
its credit facilities
and banking
relationships.
In
these
circumstances,
awarding interest is not a matter of grace or
bounty, but a matter of right and necessary
compensation for the losses suffered due to
the Authority's defaults and high-handed
conduct.
10 All. Logix Buildwell Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
775

4.11. He lastly submitted that, in this
background, this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to grant all the reliefs sought in the
writ petition, particularly by directing the
NOIDA Authority to pay interest at the rate
of 14% per annum on the refunded amount
from the date of deposit till the date of
actual payment.

D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF NOIDA AUTHORITY AND THE
STATE RESPONDENTS:-

5. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and
3
-
NOIDA
Authority,
Shri
M.C.
Chaturvedi,
learned
Senior
Counsel,
assisted by Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh,
submitted that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner
company
is
wholly
misconceived,
devoid
of
merit,
and
deserves outright dismissal. The entire
relief claimed by the petitioner is based
upon an incorrect assumption that the
Authority is liable to pay interest on
amounts deposited by the petitioner. Such a
plea is not borne out either from the
governing
scheme,
the
terms
and
conditions of allotment, or from the
subsequent conduct of the petitioner. The
petition is nothing but an attempt to seek
double benefit after having voluntarily
availed a refund of deposited amounts
along with specific undertakings given by
the petitioner itself before this Court and
the NOIDA Authority.

5.1. He further submitted that the first
and foremost fact which must be placed on
record is that the petitioner was allotted
land by NOIDA Authority under a specific
scheme of allotment. The scheme itself
clearly stipulated conditions regarding
payments, execution of lease deed, taking
of possession, consequences of delay, and
also consequences of default. It was
unambiguously provided that the allottee
was required to deposit 10% of the
tendered amount within 90 days of issuance
of allotment letter, and thereafter to
complete execution of lease deed within
180 days. In case of failure, the allotment
was liable to be cancelled and substantial
forfeiture imposed. Extension of time could
be
granted
only
in
exceptional
circumstances and that too on payment of
interest at the rate of 11% normal plus 3%
penal interest. Beyond the prescribed
period, the scheme did not contemplate
further indulgence, and NOIDA Authority
was within its rights to cancel the
allotment.

5.2. The petitioner-company, despite
being fully aware of these stipulations,
failed to honour its obligations. It failed to
deposit the requisite amounts within time.
Instead, it sought repeated extensions, first
within 120 days and then beyond even that
period. On the special request of the
petitioner, NOIDA Authority placed the
matter before its Board, which, in a gesture
of accommodation, extended time till
31.01.2012. Even this extended deadline
was not honoured by the petitionercompany, and it continued to default. This
non-compliance directly resulted in nonexecution of the lease deed, and as per the
clear terms of allotment, the NOIDA
Authority was justified in treating the
allotment as lapsed.

5.3. He further argued that the
petitioner's contention that it had performed
all obligations or was prevented by
circumstances
beyond
its
control
is
factually incorrect and misleading. The
record clearly establishes that the petitioner
repeatedly
defaulted
on
payment
obligations, sought multiple extensions,
and failed to deposit dues even within the
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
extended timelines. This consistent noncompliance directly resulted in nonexecution of the lease deed. As per the
express terms of allotment accepted by the
petitioner, the NOIDA Authority was fully
justified in treating the allotment as lapsed.
The responsibility for non-execution of the
lease deed lies entirely with the petitionercompany.

5.4. He also pointed out that at this
stage, it is significant to highlight Clause
L(2) of the allotment conditions. That
clause expressly provided that if an allottee
wished to surrender its plot, such surrender
had to be done within 30 days of allotment.
In such an event, the NOIDA Authority
could forfeit a part of the premium and
refund the balance without interest. This
clause is crucial because it shows two
things: first, refund was permissible only
without interest, and second, there was no
contractual
obligation
on
NOIDA
Authority to ever pay interest on deposited
amounts.
This
alone
demolishes
the
foundation of the petitioner's prayer for
interest at 14%.

5.5. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court
in Writ Petition No. 8923 of 2022, seeking
refund of the amount deposited. This Court,
by its order dated 11.08.2022, directed the
Authority to refund the principal sum of
Rs.62,09,59,254/-. Pursuant thereto, and
crucially, on the basis of an affidavit given
by the petitioner company, the NOIDA
Authority refunded the entire principal
amount.
The
petitioner-company
specifically undertook that it would not
claim any interest on this refunded amount
in future and that no further action would
be initiated against NOIDA Authority. This
undertaking was material in persuading the
Authority not to challenge the Court's order
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact,
the matter was placed before the Board of
NOIDA, and on the strength of this clear
undertaking, the Board resolved to release
the amount without contest.

5.6. In this backdrop, learned Senior
Counsel submitted that having consciously
availed the refund, without deduction and
without further litigation, and having
voluntarily given an undertaking not to
claim interest, the petitioner is now
estopped from turning around and filing the
present writ petition to seek interest. The
doctrine of approbation and reprobation
squarely applies. A party cannot accept the
benefits of a settlement or undertaking on
one hand, and then claim an inconsistent
advantage on the other. Such conduct
amounts to abuse of process of law. In
support of his submissions, learned Senior
Counsel has placed reliance upon judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalpraj
Dharamshi
and
others
vs.
Kotak
Investment Advisors Ltd. And others and
a judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in Smt. Madhubala Jaiswal vs. Real
Estate Appellate Tribunal.

5.7. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Counsel had also pointed out that
the claim of interest is contrary to the
scheme itself. The allotment terms did not
provide for interest in cases of refund. On
the
contrary,
the
scheme
expressly
contemplated that in case of surrender or
cancellation,
refund
would
be
made
without interest. This is the consistent
policy of NOIDA Authority, uniformly
applied to all allottees. If the petitioner's
plea is accepted, it would create an
anomalous situation where one allottee, by
breaching conditions and seeking refund,
stands to earn interest, whereas another
10 All. Logix Buildwell Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
777
allottee who complied with the scheme
suffers. This would be inequitable and
discriminatory.

5.8. He further submitted that the
petitioner's reliance on alleged equities or
hardships is entirely misplaced. The
NOIDA Authority is a statutory body
governed by its schemes and rules. It
cannot be compelled to pay amounts which
are not authorised under the scheme. Courts
have repeatedly held that public authorities
cannot be bound by claims dehors the terms
of allotment, especially where the allottee
itself is at fault. In this case, the petitionercompany was in breach of its obligations
and is seeking to derive benefit from its
own wrong.

5.9. It was pointed out by the learned
Senior Counsel that even the petitioner's
subsequent actions showed lack of bona
fides. After obtaining refund on the
strength of its undertaking, it filed the
present petition. Initially, it even submitted
a letter dated 30.01.2023 withdrawing its
claim, but later retracted the withdrawal by
another letter dated 14.02.2023. This flipflop
conduct
demonstrates
that
the
petitioner is indulging in speculative
litigation, trying to reopen settled issues to
extract monetary advantage. Such a course
cannot be permitted.

5.10. He argued that the argument of
the learned counsel for the petitioner
company that since the petitioner-company
deposited huge sums with the NOIDA -
Authority, it is entitled to interest as a
matter of right, is absolutely fallacious. The
petitioner deposited those sums as part of
consideration for allotment. Those amounts
were not lying with NOIDA Authority as
free funds, but as part of an ongoing
contractual process. When that process
failed due to petitioner's default, the refund
was made strictly in accordance with the
governing scheme. The petitioner's deposits
cannot be equated to a fixed deposit or a
loan where interest accrues by default. It
was a conditional payment under allotment,
and therefore no question of interest arises.

5.11. In addition thereto, he submitted
that the affidavit filed before the NOIDA
Authority, annexed as Annexure CA-4 to
the counter affidavit, clearly records that
the petitioner-company gave up its claim
for interest. This document alone is
sufficient
to
non-suit
the
petitionercompany. It is an admission by the
petitioner-company itself. Courts have
consistently held that a party is bound by
its own undertakings and cannot later
resile. The NOIDA Authority has acted on
the strength of that undertaking, including
its decision not to file an SLP. To now
permit the petitioner-company to agitate for
interest would not only be unjust to the
Authority but also set a dangerous
precedent
encouraging
litigants
to
dishonour
solemn
undertakings
given
before
judicial
forums
and
statutory
Authorities.

5.12.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
emphasized
that
the
Authority
has,
throughout,
acted
with
fairness
and
indulgence.
Instead
of
straightaway
cancelling the allotment upon default, it
granted repeated extensions, even by Board
resolution, to facilitate the petitionercompany. It refunded the entire deposit
without deduction of forfeiture, despite
having the right under the scheme to forfeit
a substantial portion. It did not contest the
matter further in higher courts, only
because
of
the
petitioner's
solemn
assurance. The NOIDA Authority has,
therefore, acted more than reasonably. The
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner-company, on the other hand, is
attempting
to
misuse
the
Court's
jurisdiction to claim what was never
promised, never agreed, and expressly
given up.

5.13.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
vehemently submitted that in view of the
above, the instant writ petition is wholly
misconceived. There is no contractual,
statutory, or equitable basis for directing
payment of interest to the petitionercompany. On the contrary, the petitioner is
estopped
by
its
own
conduct
and
undertaking. The petition is liable to be
dismissed with costs, to prevent such abuse
of process.

5.14. Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent No.1, associated himself
entirely with the submissions advanced by
Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 - NOIDA Authority, and
adopted the same without any objection/
reservation.

E. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:-

Analysis of Contractual Framework
and Statutory Obligations

6. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and having perused the record
carefully, we find ourselves confronted
with a case that raises significant questions
about the nature of contractual obligations,
the scope of court orders, and the conduct
of
parties
in
honouring
solemn
undertakings given before judicial forums.

6.1. Before delving into the above
questions, it is necessary to appreciate the
factual matrix in its entirety. The petitionercompany participated in a commercial
tender
process
initiated
by
NOIDA
Authority for allotment of a valuable
commercial plot. The petitioner-company
emerged successful and was required to
comply with certain payment schedules and
procedural requirements as per the scheme
of allotment. Admittedly, the petitionercompany failed to meet several of these
obligations within the stipulated time
frames. Extensions were sought and
granted, yet defaults continued. Eventually,
the allotment was cancelled and amounts
forfeited by the Authority.

6.2. The petitioner then approached
this Court in Writ Petition No. 8923 of
2022, challenging the cancellation and
forfeiture. This Court, in its wisdom, found
merit in the petitioner's grievance and
directed refund of the deposited amount of
Rs.
62,09,59,254/-
within
45
days.
Significantly, in paragraph 22 of the order
dated 11.08.2022, this Court specifically
left open the question of interest and
permitted the petitioner to prefer an
appropriate
application
before
the
competent authority. At the cost of
repetition, the relevant portion of paragraph
22 reads as follows:

"22. So far as the interest part is
concerned, at this stage, we are not passing
any order, leaving it open to the petitioner
to prefer an appropriate application before
the competent authority of the respondent.
In the eventuality of such an application
being filed, it is expected from the authority
to
pass
appropriate
orders
after
considering all aspects of the matter
strictly, in accordance with law."

6.3. A plain reading of this paragraph
makes it abundantly clear that this Court
did not grant any entitlement to interest.
10 All. Logix Buildwell Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
779
The Court merely left the door open for the
petitioner to make an application to the
Authority, which would then decide the
matter
considering
all
aspects
in
accordance with law. There was no
direction, implicit or explicit, that interest
was payable or that the Authority was
bound to grant interest. The matter was left
entirely to the discretion of the Authority to
be exercised in accordance with the
governing legal framework.

The Modification Issue of the
Court's order dated 11.08.2022

6.4. We have carefully considered the
submission of learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner to the effect that it was not
permissible for the NOIDA Authority to
modify this Court's order by attaching
conditions to the refund. While we
appreciate that the Court's order dated
11.08.2022 did not expressly authorize the
Authority to seek an undertaking, we must
also recognize that paragraph 22 of the
order left the question of interest entirely
open to be decided by the Authority "after
considering all aspect of the matter
strictly in accordance with law." The
order
did
not
grant
any
automatic
entitlement to interest, nor did it preclude
the Authority from seeking clarifications or
assurances before effecting the refund. In
the circumstances, while the Authority's
approach may have been overly cautious,
we
cannot
characterize
it
as
an
impermissible modification of the Court's
order or as contempt. The Authority was
within its rights to seek clarity on the scope
of
its
obligations
before
releasing
substantial public funds.

The Nature and Effect of the
Undertaking

6.5. The most critical aspect of this
case revolves around the undertaking-cumaffidavit dated 09.01.2023 given by the
authorised representative of the petitioner
company to the NOIDA Authority, stating
therein that the company urgently requires
funds
and
seeks
release
of
Rs.62,09,59,254/- in compliance with the
aforesaid order dated 11.08.2022. The
authorised representative affirmed that
upon receipt of this amount, the company
will not claim any interest from NOIDA
Authority
nor
initiate
further
legal
proceedings on this matter. This affidavit
has
been
executed
specifically
in
accordance with NOIDA's letter dated
06.01.2023. The undertaking-cum-affidavit
dated 09.01.2023 is reproduced below for
ready reference:-

"UNDERTAKING-CUM-AFFIDAVIT

1 Davender Mohan Saxena S/o
Late Sh. R.M.Rai Saxena, aged about 55
years authorised representative of Logix
Buildwell Private Limited, registered office
at DGL006, Ground Floor, DLF Galleria,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-1 New Delhi-110091
also at A 4 & 5, Sector-16 Noida 201301
Uttar Pradesh, do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as under:

"1.
I
am
the
authorised
representative of Logix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
("Company") and I am competent to swear
the present undertaking-cum-affidavit.

2.
1
say
that
the
present
undertaking-cum-affidavit is being given on
the direction of New Okhla Industrial
Development
Authority
("NOIDA")
in
terms of Letter dated 06.01.2023 so that
amount would be released at the earliest to
the Company by the NOIDA in terms of
order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, as the
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Company is in dire need of funds and is
facing acute financial problems.

3. I say that subject to receipt of
the amount of Rs.62,09,59,254/- (Rupees
Sixty Two Crores Fifty Nine Lacs Two
Hundred
and
Fifty
Four
only)
in
compliance of Order dated 11.08.2022
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.
8923 of 2022 titled as Logix Buildwell
Private Limited-Versus-State of UP & Ors.,
the Company would not claim any interest
from the NOIDA Authority or initiate any
further action in this regard against
Noida.

4.
1
say
that
the
present
undertaking and as such the same is being
issued on the directions of NOIDA.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

1, Davender Mohan Saxena, the
deponent above-named, do hereby verify
that
the
contents
of
the
foregoing
undertaking-cum-affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, no
part of it is false or incorrect and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at Noida on this 09 day
of January, 2023,
DEPONENT"

(Emphasis Supplied)

6.6. This undertaking was material and
consequential. It formed the basis upon
which the NOIDA Authority decided to
refund the entire amount without deduction
and without pursuing further legal remedies
before
higher
forums.
The
NOIDA
Authority placed reliance on this solemn
assurance and acted upon it by releasing the
substantial sum of Rs. 62,09,59,254/- to the
petitioner.

6.7.
This
undertaking
was
not
extracted under duress or coercion. It was
voluntarily submitted by the petitioner
company after due consideration and
presumably after taking legal advice. In this
undertaking, the petitioner company clearly
and unequivocally stated that it would not
claim any interest on the refunded amount
and would not initiate any further litigation
against the NOIDA Authority in relation to
this matter.

6.8. Having received the benefit of this
refund in full, without any deduction
whatsoever, the petitioner-company cannot
now be permitted to turn around and claim
interest. This would be contrary to the most
fundamental principles of justice, equity,
and good conscience. It would amount to
blowing hot and cold at the same time,
which is impermissible in law.

6.9. The principle that a party cannot
approbate and reprobate is well-established
in our jurisprudence. A person cannot
accept a benefit under a transaction or
undertaking and simultaneously challenge
its validity or seek inconsistent reliefs. The
doctrine prevents parties from taking
contradictory positions to gain unfair
advantages.

6.10. In the present case, the petitioner
company accepted the refund on the
specific basis that no interest would be
claimed. Having obtained that advantage,
the petitioner is now estopped from
claiming interest.