Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

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