Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 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

Latest Legal News