Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S HIMALAYAN FROZEN FOODS LTD. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Himalayan Frozen Foods Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-19555-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 12094 (7 December 2006)

CWP No.19555 of 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.19555 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION: November 27, 2006

M/s Himalayan Frozen Foods Ltd.

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

....

Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA

PRESENT: Ms.Munisha Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.

The petitioner company has approached this Court for issuance of directions to the respondent State of Punjab to release the subsidy to the petitioner. It is claimed by the petitioner company that in terms of the Industrial Incentive Code framed by the State of Punjab under the Industrial Policy, 1996, the petitioner company had set up a small scale industrial unit for manufacture and process of frozen foods for export. On July 14, 1999, a term loan of Rs.120 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner company by Punjab Agri Pag

e

CWP No.19555 of 2005

Export Corporation Limited, respondent No.3. There were some repayment of loan by the petitioner company, but a substantial amount still remains to be repaid. On June 7, 2001, the State Government of Punjab had sanctioned an amount of Rs.50 lacs as investment incentive and an amount of Rs.13.69 as Diesel Generating Set subsidy to the petitioner company. It has been claimed by the petitioner company that despite the expiry of more than 5 years, the said amount of Rs.63.69 lacs has not been released to it so far, whereas, respondent No.3 Corporation is taking steps for recovery of the amount of loan. In these circumstances, the petitioner company has approached this Court through the present petition.

The claim of the petitioner company has been contested by respondents No.1 and 2. A written statement on behalf of the said respondents has been filed. The respondents have maintained that the capital subsidy was sanctioned to the petitioner unit in the State Level Committee meeting held on May 22, 2001 but the industrial units, which had been sanctioned subsidy much earlier in the State Level Committee meeting on April 23, 1997 (General category) and February 7, 1999 (Export oriented units category), are still awaiting disbursement. The respondents have further maintained that the disbursement will be made as per the seniority position of the various units maintained by the State Government. A reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench order of this Court dated May 11, 2006 passed in CWP No.8719 of 2002 (Border District Industries Association Batala vs. State of Punjab and others connection matters).

The following order was passed by this Court on May 11, 2006: Pag

e

CWP No.19555 of 2005

"This order shall dispose of a batch of writ petitions as in all the cases similar facts and similar controversies are involved.

For the sake of convenience, the main order is passed in CWP No.8719 of 2002.

Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General

appearing for the State of Punjab has placed on record a decision dated February 6, 2006, taken by the State Government of Punjab on the basis of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers in its meeting dated January 30,2006. Decision taken by the Council of Ministers on January 30,2006 is extracted as below:

"The Council of Ministers noted that the State Government has already discussed the matter with Ministry of Finance, Government of India to issue bonds for discharging the liability created under Subsidies announced from time to time and it is expected that their formal approval will be received during February 2006 after which the scheme will be notified. With the implementation of this scheme, liability worth Rs.100 crore per annum from 2006-07 will be cleared till the total liability created is discharged.

However, in case this Bond scheme could not be notified due to any reason then the State Government will release an amount of Rs.50 crore upto March 31, 2006 for this purpose and from the Pag

e

CWP No.19555 of 2005

year 2006-07 onwards an amount of Rs.100 crore will be released per year."

At the outset, Mr.M.C.Berry, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab informs the Court that the Bond scheme has not been notified so far and therefore in consonance with the decision taken by the Council of Ministers, the State Government shall release an amount of Rs.50 crores within a period of 2 months from today and from the year 2006-07 onwards, an amount of Rs.100 crores would be released per year and would be disbursed strictly in accordance with the seniority list already placed on the record of the case and available on the website of the Department of Industries.

The aforesaid statement of Mr.Berry fully satisfies learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid fact, present petitions are disposed of accordingly.

The State Government shall abide by the decision of the Council of Ministers dated January 30,2006 as noticed above and as so stated by Mr.M.C.Berry today, in the Court."

In view of the stand taken by respondents No.1 and 2 in the written statement and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is down below in the seniority list maintained by the department for disbursement of the industrial subsidy, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.

Pag

e

CWP No.19555 of 2005

However, as undertaken by the respondents, the petitioner company shall be disbursed subsidy as and when its turn matures for disbursement.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of charges for urgent copies.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

November 27, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

Pag

e

CWP No.19555 of 2005

CM No.19601 of 2006 in

CWP NO.19555 of 2005

PRESENT: Ms.Munisha Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant.

Prayer made in the application is allowed.

Replication is taken on record.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

November 27, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

Pag

e


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.