Dismissed

Ms Kuber Tmt Plant Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand HC9 Feb 2023WPC/3211/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, M/s. Kuber TMT Plant Pvt. Ltd., challenged a memo rejecting its capital subsidy application on grounds of delay. Relying on a Division Bench judgment, the Court held the petitioner was not entitled to the relief and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs prayed for in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of paragraph 2 were denied; interim order vacated.

Ms Kuber Tmt Plant Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3211 of 2012

¶3

M/s. Kuber TMT Plant Pvt. Ltd. an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 712, Marshall House, 7^th Floor, 25, Strand Road, Kolkata 700-001 and Works at Phase IV – C, Part 4, Bokaro Industrial Area, Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand through one of its Director, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri S.N. Singh resident of Keshav Bhawan, Bhagwati Colony, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas (M), District – Bokaro (Jharkhand)

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi

¶8

The Director, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi

¶9

The Deputy Director, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi

¶10

The Secretary, Bokaro Industrial Area, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. – Bokaro, District - Bokaro. … … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, A.C. to G.P II

¶14

¶15

04 /09.02.2023 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶16

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶17

(a) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, including the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the Memo No.18/SC Ranchi dated 13.01.2012 issued under the signature of Secretary to the Government dated 13.01.2012 passed in Appeal No.22 / 2011 whereby and whereunder, the application of the petitioner for grant of capital subsidy has been rejected on the ground of delay in filing the application for grant of capital subsidy, although the petitioner is eligible and fulfills all the criterion as laid down in the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 for grant of capital subsidy.

¶18

(b) For the issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing upon the respondent to forthwith grant capital subsidy to the petitioner inasmuch as in terms of the provisions as contained in Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 the petitioner is eligible for the capital investment subsidy and fulfils all the requisite criterions and the petitioner does not fall in the negative list of industry as enumerated at Annexure- 3.

¶19

(c) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for a declaration that Clause 4 (Gha) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules 2003 is beyond the scope and authority of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 itself and, hence, cannot curtail the substantive right already accrued in favour of the petitioner by prescribing the period of six months from the end of the financial year for making application for claim, as extended by the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001.”

¶20

3. Learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that issue involved in the instant writ petition is fully covered against the petitioner by virtue of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Division

¶21

¶22

Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 211 of 2012 dated 13.06.2018 [State of Jharkhand & Ors Vs. Bir Steel (P) Limited, Giridih] . 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that in view of the ratio decided by Hon’ble Division in the aforesaid case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶23

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the writ petitioner in this writ petition, which is accordingly is dismissed.

¶24

6. Interim order, if any is vacated.

¶25

7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶26

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶27

Saurav/

Ms Kuber Tmt Plant Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Jharkhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Kuber Tmt Plant Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Jharkhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Laxmi Enterprises through Its Proprietor Narottam Das Vs State of Jharkhand

Kohinoor Stel Pvt. Ltd. through Its Manager Corporate Affairs Sri Prabir Kumar Ghosh Vs Mines and Geological Survey

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ganesh Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand And

Indu Singh Vs the Jharkhand State Housing Board through Its Managing Director and Ors.