Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra

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

Latest Legal News