Writ petition dismissed. Petitioners sought benefits under a State Government Resolution for small-scale industries but failed to qualify as Clause 7 covered new loans for business, not loan repayment, and Clause 4 did not apply to already declared sick units.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Ladda
wp-2189-10.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 2189 OF 2010.
Narayan Vankayya Pitta & Anr .. Petitioners. VERSUS The Deputy Registrar & Ors .. Respondents.
Mr I.M. Kharadi, for the Petitioners. Mr V.S.Gokhale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5. Ms Pallavi Dabholkar for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R. Y. GANOO, JJ.
DATED : 10th OCTOBER, 2012.
P.C. :
1 of 3
wp-2189-10.sxw
petitioners' case would fall under Clause 4 or Clause 7 thereof. The Original G.R. dated 11th February, 2004 is in Marathi. Free English translation of the said GR is tendered by the Counsel for the petitioners.
We are not expressing any opinion on the correctness thereof. The translated portion of Clause 4 and Clause 7 read thus :
“4. Those Loan accounts, which are defaulted by the Power Loan Unit Holders (like ordinary/semi quto / jacquard / Teritowel / shuttle less) prior to 31.12.2003, be given status of Sick Industries & the benefits of G.R. Dated 24.1.2001 be made available for revival of Sick Small Scale Industries and the benefits of “D+” Category be given to such sick small scale industries.
2 of 3
wp-2189-10.sxw
defaulted prior to 1998 and already declared sick industry. It is not the case of the petitioners that because they were already declared as sick industry, also will be covered by GR dated 24th January, 2001. In any case, the purport of Clause 4, as appears to us, is that the power loom unit holders who have already defaulted as on 31st December, 2003, “should be given the status of sick industry” and extended benefit of GR dated 24th January, 2001 of category “D+”. If the concerned industry is already declared sick before this date, then nothing more needs to be done. This Clause, therefore, will have no application to the case on hand.
(R.Y.GANOO,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)
Ladda
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners qualify for benefits under Clause 7 of State Government Resolution dated 11th February, 2004 when funds were utilized to repay existing loans.
Whether Clause 4 of the said resolution applies to petitioners who were already declared sick industries prior to 31st December, 2003.
Narayan Vankayya Pitta & Anr.
The Deputy Registrar
Ors.
A.M. Khanwilkar
R.Y. Ganoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
