"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Ownership Changes Render Manufacturing Units in Sikkim Ineligible for Budgetary Support Scheme - Sikkim High Court"

05 September 2024 5:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Sikkim High Court, presided over by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, has ruled that changes in ownership and constitution disqualify manufacturing units in Sikkim from availing the Budgetary Support Scheme introduced for eligible units in the state.

The two writ petitions under consideration involved the eligibility of Zydus Wellness Products Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited for budgetary support under the Budgetary Support Scheme, a part of various Industrial Promotion Schemes aimed at bolstering manufacturing units in Sikkim. The core issue before the court was whether alterations in ownership and constitution could prevent these units from benefiting from the scheme.

The petitioners argued that the transformation from a partnership concern to a company should not strip them of the right to access the Budgetary Support Scheme. They contended that despite the legal entity change, the business, assets, and liabilities remained consistent.

However, the respondents held a different view. They posited that changes in ownership and constitution effectively categorized the petitioners as new legal entities, thereby making them ineligible for the Budgetary Support Scheme. The Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce both supported this viewpoint.

In its detailed examination of the Budgetary Support Scheme, the Court emphasized that the scheme aimed to provide support exclusively to existing eligible manufacturing units that had been operating in Sikkim. It was apparent that the scheme was designed for units that had met the criteria under previous excise duty exemption/refund schemes but had not fully benefited from those schemes due to untimely withdrawal. Importantly, the scheme did not extend to units that had not made the requisite investments to avail the benefits of previous exemptions.

The Court, therefore, held that both petitioners, Zydus Wellness Products Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited, did not qualify as eligible units under the scheme's definition, as they did not exist during the period when the exemption notification was applicable. Furthermore, the change in ownership and constitution of these entities further disqualified them from the scheme.

This judgment serves as a significant precedent in clarifying the eligibility criteria for manufacturing units seeking support under the Budgetary Support Scheme in Sikkim. It underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of such schemes and the impact of changes in ownership and constitution on eligibility.

Date of Decision: 12 September, 2023

Zydus Wellness Products Limited  vs Union of India, Through the Secretary

Similar News