Remanded

Evershine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Sept 2021WP(C)/26604/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of two intrinsically connected writ petitions concerning the transfer of industrial land held by Evershine Petroleum to Saffe Panel Industry. The court directs the KSIDC to decide whether to execute the lease deed or accept the cancellation of the transfer request.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Respondent to consider executing the lease deed or accepting the cancellation request within two months after hearing parties.

Evershine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 23661 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SAFFE PANEL INDUSTRY (P) LTD., INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 541, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. MUJESH C.K.P., BY ADVS. K.T.THOMAS SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.NIKHIL BERNY

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2 KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 003, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3 THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, (PROJECTS), KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, 2ND FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORMA JUNCTION, KOCHI 682 016.

¶9

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶10

:-2-:

¶11

4 EVERSHINE PETROLEUM PVT.LTD., MULAVARIKKAL ESTATE BUILDING, ASOKAPURAM P.O. ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, 683 101, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN I.V.PRAMOD S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SMT.RASHMI K.M., GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).26604/2020, THE COURT ON 03.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶13

:-3-:

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶15

PRESENT

¶16

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶17

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943

¶18

WP(C) NO. 26604 OF 2020

¶19

PETITIONER:

¶20

EVERSHINE PETROLEUM PVT. LTD., MULAVARCKAL ESTATE BUILDING, ASOKAPURAM P.O., ALUVA-683101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P.DOMENIC, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.M.P.PETER, MULAVARCKAL ESTATE BUILDING, ASOKAPURAM P.O., ALUVA-683101.

¶21

BY ADVS. I.V.PRAMOD K.V.SASIDHARAN SAIRA SOURAJ P. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

¶22

RESPONDENTS:

¶23

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶24

2 KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MANAGING DIRECTOR, (KSIDC), KESTO ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶25

3 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, (KSIDC), KESTO ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶26

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶27

:-4-:

¶28

4 MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, (KSIDC), CHERTHALA 688524. 5 M/S. SAFFE PANEL INDUSTRY PVT. LIMITED, ANAKKAT HOUSE, JUDGES AVENUE, KATTAKARA ROAD, KALOOR P.O., PIN-682017, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, CHOVAKARANKLOTH PUDHIYAMALIYAMAL MUJESH, NEW REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO. E3, KSIDC INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, PALLIPURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶29

6 PROGRAME IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, (KSIDC), KESTO ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. BY ADVS. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS

¶30

SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.G.P.

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).23661/2020, THE COURT ON 03.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶33

:-5-:

¶34

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶35

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶36

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2021

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The above two writ petitions are intrinsically connected and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶39

W.P.(C)No.23661/2020

¶40

The petitioner in this writ petition is a company engaged in

¶41

the manufacture of wood-based panel products whose industry is set up in the land allotted on lease at the Industrial Growth Sector, Pallippuram, Cherthala. The fourth respondent (the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.26604/2020) was functioning an LPG Bottling plant in the property adjacent to the petitioner's Unit. The fourth respondent's Unit was not functioning for several years since it was under lockout and the fourth respondent had approached the petitioner to take over the

¶42

leased land. The petitioner who was also proposing to expand its Unit, had agreed to the request and entered into an agreement with the

¶43

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶44

:-6-:

¶45

fourth respondent. On the basis of the agreement, the fourth respondent requested the second respondent seeking permission to transfer the property to the petitioner so that they will be able to clear all the dues with the second respondent. A letter date d 25.2.2019 was received by the second respondent on 26.2.2019. The District Industrial Land Allotment Committee ('DILAC', for short) at its meeting held o n 8.3.2019, de cided to approve the transfer of allotment from the fourth respondent to the petitioner as per the land disposal policy of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'KSIDC') subject to the following conditions and approval of the Managing Director of KSIDC.

¶46

M/s.Evershine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. shall clear the

¶47

balance lease premium with arrears to KSIDC.

¶48

The Transferee, M/s.Saffe Panel Industry (P) Ltd shall

¶49

pay the transfer charges applicable amounting to Rs.4,90,202/- plus GST @ 18%.

¶50

A no due certificate on common facility charges from

¶51

IGC park office has to be submitted in respect of the transferor.

¶52

Since the company has availed loan assistance from

¶53

KSIDC an NOC from KSIDC Project Dept. for transfer of allotment has to be submitted in respect of transferor.”

¶54

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶55

:-7-:

¶56

O n 23.10.2019 the th ird respondent wrote to the petitioner referring to the decision taken as per Ext.P2 and requesting them to comply with the transfer conditions within 90 days from the date of the letter to effect the transfer of allotment of 4 acres of land from the fourth respondent to the petitioner. It can be seen from Ext.P4 letter dated 18.1.2020 written by the petitioner to the third res pondent that a sum of Rs.11 lakhs was transferred to KSIDC's account on 12.11.2019 and a further sum of Rs.6,47,848/- was transferred on 18.1.2020 to the KSIDC. It was stated i n the letter that the balance amounts payable are with respect to the loan account of the fourth respondent, the land lease premium arrears of the fourth respondent and common facility charges due to the transferor. T hereafter, by Ext.P5 letter dated 20.1.2020, the petitioner informed the third respondent that the amounts to be paid towards the loa n account of the fourth respondent, the land lease premium arrears of the fourth respondent and the common facility charges of the fourth respondent have also been transferred. The petitioner in Ext.P5, requested for handing over of the 4 acres of land at the earliest. When respondents

¶57

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶58

:-8-:

¶59

2 and 3 did not take any steps to complete the process of allotment in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner had written to the then Minister of Industries and the Principal Secretary to the Industries and the letters are produced as Exts.P6 and P7. The above letters were written on 4.2.2020. Wh en no action was forthcoming, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to effect transfer of allotment of plot or land at KSIDC Industrial Growth Centre, Pallippuram, Cherthala, as decided in Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 to the petitioner expeditiously.

¶60

W.P.(C)No.26604/2020

¶61

The fourth respondent in W.P.(C)No.23661/2020 has filed this writ petition. T he petitioner had entered into a licence agreement with the second respondent on 12.7.2007 for establishing an LPG Bottling Plant within two years aft er remittance of the lease premium. The petitioner constructed the Bottling plant and obtained all requisite permissions to commence the Bottling Unit. The lease premium initially fixed wa s Rs.4,93,000/- per acre. The amount was revised to over Rs.26.68 lakhs per acre in the year 2008 as per Ext.P2. The petitioner requested for payment of the amount in installments within

¶62

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶63

:-9-:

¶64

10 years. The request was approved by the KSIDC o n 11.12.2013 as per Ext.P3. The petitioner had unprecedented labour issue during 2017-'18 which resulted in closure of the Unit. It is stated that at the instance of officers of the KSIDC, the fifth respondent (the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23661/2020) came forward to take over the land and Ext.P4 agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. It is stated that as per Ext.P4, Rs.20 lakhs was paid to the petitioner. But the fifth respondent failed to make payments to the KSIDC within the time fixed in Ext.P4 agreement. It is stated that since the liability of the petitioner to the KSIDC was mounting, they arranged the funds and effected payment o f Rs.1,08,00,000/- on 6.2.2020. By Ext.P5 letter dated 4.3.2020, the petitioner requested for the accounts statement on the lease premium ac count and agreed to pay the balance amount within 10 days of such intimation. On 10.1.2020, the petitioner was said to have issued Ext.P6 letter to the KSIDC cancelling the request for transfer of the land to the fifth respondent.

¶65

On 13.3.2020 by Ext.P7 letter, the KSIDC intimated the petitioner not to proceed with the maintenance work in the petitioner's

¶66

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶67

:-10-:

¶68

plant. It is the contention of the petitioner that all liabilities towards KSIDC were cleared by the petitioner on 6.2.2020 and that the balance amount payable has not yet be en intimated by the KSIDC. The writ petition states an apprehension of the petitioner that the KSIDC will transfer the concern to the fifth respondent for the reason that the entire liabilities are not cleared. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P8 letter which is an e-mail da ted 24.9.2020 se nt by the Assistant General Manager of the second respondent to the petitioner stating that the land lease premium that had been remitted cannot be adjusted against the dues with the term loan account and requesting the petitioner to settle the loan account on or bef ore 30.9.2020, failin g which KSIDC will be constrained to initiate RR action against them. The petitioner further contends that the letter dat ed 23.10.2019 which has been produced as Ext.P9 from the second respondent could not have been issued without a decision taken by the sixth respondent Programme Implementation Committee regarding the tran sfer of allotment to the fifth respondent. The petitioner has also produc ed Ext.P10 which is a lawyer notice issued on behalf of the fifth respondent to the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P4 agreement

¶69

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶70

:-11-:

¶71

between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court praying to set aside Ext.P9 letter and Ext.P7 letter insofar as it prevents maintenance of LPG Bottling Plant established by the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the KSIDC to grant necessary permission for continuing the obligation of the petitioner company under Ext.P1 and for other reliefs.

¶72

Heard Sri K.T.Thomas on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. (c)No.23661 of 2020 (5^th respondent in W.P.(c)No.26604/2020), Sri.S.Sreekumar, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.I.V.Pramod, on behalf of the 4^th respondent in W.P.(c)No.23661 of 2020 (petitioner in W.P.(c)No.26604/2020), Sri P.U.Shailajan, Standing Counsel for the K.S.I.D.C appearing for Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(c)No.23661 of 2020 and respondents 2,3,4 and 6 in in W.P.(c)26604/2020 and Smt.Deepa Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State.

¶73

W.P.(c)No.23661 of 2020 is treated as the lead case and the parties are referred to in accordance with the cause title in the said case. Sri.K.T.Thomas, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 4^th Respondent was originally allotted 5 acres of land for starting his

¶74

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶75

:-12-:

¶76

unit, out of which one acre which was un-utilsed was resumed on 11.12.2013, since the 4^th respondent could not meet the additional demand for lease premium. The KSIDC had initially granted Ext.R2(a) license for a period of 2 years to the 4^th Respondent, to enter the premises and make necessary concessions for setting up a factory. During the said two years, 50 % of lease premium was to be paid. It is only thereafter that the lease deed was to be executed. On execution, the lease is to be for a period of 88 years from the end of the period of licence. Admittedly, no lease deed in terms of Exhibit R2(a) has been executed till date and the 4^th Respondent is continuing in possession on the basis of the license granted to them, which has already expired. It is further submitted that in August, 2017, the 4^th Respondent closed down the unit, but the KSIDC did not take any action for resuming the land. It is in this situation that the 4^th respondent is said to have approached the petitioner with a request for transfer of the land held under licence. On 21.2.2019, the petitioner and the 4^th respondent entered into an agreement regarding the terms of the transfer as between them and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.20 lakhs to the 4^th respondent. The copy of the agreement is

¶77

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶78

:-13-:

¶79

produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(c)No.26604/2020. Four days thereafter, the 4^th respondent submitted Ext.P1 request before the KSIDC for transfer of the land to the petitioner. Exhibit P2 minutes would show that the request was considered by the DILAC and approved, subject to certain conditions. Ext.P2 would also show that the 4^th respondent had availed of financial assistance from the KSIDC for their project and that the 4^th Respondent could not remit the additional lease premium demanded by the KSIDC, which was the reason why One acre out of the 5 acres of land initially allotted was resumed in June, 2013 and the lease premium was reworked. However, Ext.P2 does not lay down any payment schedule, since the approval by the DILAC was subject to approval by the Managing Director of KSIDC. After the transfer proposal was approved by the KSIDC, Ext.P3 letter was sent by the KSIDC to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent, directing the petitioner to effect payment within 90 days. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid the amounts as directed in Ext.P3. Though the 4^th Respondent had received copy of Ext.P3, no objections were raised to the stipulations in Ext.P3. It is hence contended that the decision was already taken regarding the transfer and amounts have been paid

¶80

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶81

:-14-:

¶82

within the time granted by the KSIDC and hence the 4^th Respondent is not entitled to go back on the application for transfer. The counsel for the KSIDC has produced a copy of the Rules relating to the Disposal of Land for Industrial Purposes, issued in 2013, which permits the transfer of allotted lands on satisfaction of certain conditions. It is pointed out that the 4^th respondent's unit was closed down and had dues/liabilities to the KSIDC in the form of lease premium, lease rent etc. at the time the application Ext.P1 was submitted and hence a proper decision has been taken after getting approval of the DILAC.

¶83

During the course of hearing, this Court had expressed a doubt whether the agreement between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent for transfer is enforceable since the land in question does not belong to the 4^th respondent, who is only an allottee who is yet to execute a lease deed and the actual allotment has to be done by the KSIDC. In reply, the Counsel for the petitioner referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Motani and others v. Prahlad Rai and others reported in AIR 1960 SC 213, Nathulal v. Phoolchand reported in AIR 1970 SC 546 and Shin Satellite Public Co.Ltd v. Jain Studios Ltd., reported in (2006) 2

¶84

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶85

:-15-:

¶86

SCC 628 , and submitted that the objectionable part of the agreement can be severed and the agreement has to be read as one which is subject to approval by the KSIDC. It is also submitted that the KSIDC has already approved the transfer and the above question may not arise.

¶87

The Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4^th respondent submits that the petitioner has violated the terms of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent on 21.2.2019 and delayed the payments and the 4^th respondent had thereafter raised the necessary funds and have remitted substantial portion of the amounts due to the KSIDC. It is submitted that the 4^th respondent had on 10.1.2020 written to the KSIDC stating their intention to continue functioning of their unit and requesting to cancel their request for transfer of the land to the petitioner. The Senior Counsel points out that KSIDC has not taken any decision regarding the transfer in favour of the petitioner or regarding permitting the petitioner to continue the unit and hence the decision has to be taken by the KSIDC at the first instance.

¶88

On going through the documents produced before Court, it

¶89

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶90

:-16-:

¶91

would appear that the petitioner was acting upon the agreement executed between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent on 21.2.2019, the decision taken at the meeting of the DILAC held on 8.3.2019, and the direction to make payments on the basis of the approval of the decision of the DILAC by the KSIDC, as seen from Ext.P3. The petitioner had made a payment of an amount of Rs.20 lakh to the 4^th respondent on 21.2.2019, had transferred an amount of Rs.11 lakh towards the 4^th respondent's outstanding loan account on 12.11.2019 itself and another sum of Rs.6,47,848/- was paid on 18.1.2020 towards the lease transfer charges. On 20.1.2020, the balance amount of Rs.1,41,25,330/- had been paid by the petitioner. It would appear that after the entire amounts were paid by the petitioner, as stipulated in Ext.P2 and P3, the 4^th respondent has transferred an amount of Rs.1,08,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eight lakhs) on 6.2.2020 and agreed to pay the balance outstanding within 10 days of intimation of the balance.

¶92

Having considered the entire fact situation, I am inclined to accept the contention of the Senior Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent that the issue has to be considered at the first instance by

¶93

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶94

:-17-:

¶95

the KSIDC, who has not so far taken a decision regarding the allotment of land to the petitioner or permitting the 4^th respondent to continue operations. However, while taking a decision, the KSIDC has to bear in mind the facts which led to Ext.P1 application, the nonexecution of a lease deed in favour of the 4^th respondent despite the fact that the land was allotted as early as on 12.7.2007, the decision of DILAC taken after hearing both the parties at the meeting held on 8.3.2019, the approval of the decision of the DILAC by KSIDC, the direction issued in Ext.P3 addressed to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent, wherein the petitioner is directed to make payments within 90 days, the fact that the petitioner made the payments within 90 days, and the fact that the 4^th respondent had before the expiry of the 90 days requested for cancellation of the request for transfer and had effected payment of a portion of the amounts due after the period of 90 days stated in Ext.P3.

¶96

In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent in W.P.(c)No.23661 of 2020 to consider the question whether the lease deed is to be executed in favour of the petitioner or whether the request made by the 4^th respondent for cancellation of the

¶97

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020 :-18-:

¶98

request for transfer of the lands made as per Ext.P1 should be accepted, having due regard to the facts stated in the previous paragraphs and the rules relating to Disposal of Land for Industrial Purposes and pass orders within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner and the 4^th respondent. If physical hearing is not possible in the present circumstances, the hearing can be held in virtual mode. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶99

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

ami/

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶104

:-19-:

¶105

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23661/2020

¶106

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶107

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 25.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 08.03.2019 OF DILAC, ALAPPUZHA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE INDUSTRIES MINISTER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶108

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶109

EXHIBIT R4(A)	A TRUE	COPY	OF THE	AGREEMENT DATED
	21.02.	2019	ENTERED	INTO BETWEEN THE
	PETITI	ONER	AND THE	4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R4(B)	A TRUE	COPY	OF THE	LETTER DATED
	10.01. RESPON	2020 DENT	ISSUED	TO THE KSIDC, 2ND
EXHIBIT R4(C)	A TRUE	COPY	OF THE	E-MAIL DATED
	24.09.	2020	ISSUED	BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
	TO THE	4TH	RESPOND	ENT

¶110

:-20-:

¶111

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶112

EXHIBIT R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 12.07.2007 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE KSIDC WITH M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD.
EXHIBIT R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE KSIDC TO M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD.
EXHIBIT R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 25.02.2019 SENT BY M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD TO THE KSIDC
EXHIBIT R2(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE KSIDC TO M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD.
EXHIBIT R2(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.01.2020 SENT BY M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD TO THE KSIDC
EXHIBIT R2(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.01.2020 ISSUED BY M/S.SAFFE PANEL INDUSTRY (P) LTD IN FAVOUR OF KSIDC
EXHIBIT R2(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.03.2020 SENT BY M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD TO THE KSIDC

¶113

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶114

:-21-:

¶115

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26604/2020

¶116

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶117

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DEED ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND KSIDC DATED 12/07/2007.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10/06/2008 ISSUED TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSIDC/IGC/5-34/1658 DATED 11/12/2013 ALONG WITH THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21/02/2019.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 04/03/2020.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY TO KSIDC CANCELLING THE REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF LAND TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER KSIDC/IGC5/34/2020 DATED 13/03/2020.
EXHIBIT P8	A PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL DATED 24/09/2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSIDC/354/2019-737 DATED 23/10/2019.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 11/10/2020 ISSUED BY MAIL DATED
	12/05/2020 TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶118

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶119

EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 25.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶120

:-22-:

¶121

W.P.(C)Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020

¶122

EXHIBIT R5(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 08.03.2019 OF DILAC, ALAPPUZHA
EXHIBIT R5(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (PROJECTS), KSIDC, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT R5(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R5(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO KSIDC
EXHIBIT R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 12.07.2007 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE KSIDC WITH M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD.
EXHIBIT R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE KSIDC TO M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD.
EXHIBIT R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 25.02.2019 SENT BY M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD TO THE KSIDC
EXHIBIT R2(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE KSIDC TO M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD.
EXHIBIT R2(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.01.2020 SENT BY M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD TO THE KSIDC
EXHIBIT R2(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.01.2020 ISSUED BY M/S.SAFFE PANEL INDUSTRY (P) LTD IN FAVOUR OF KSIDC
EXHIBIT R2(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.03.2020 SENT BY M/S.EVERSHINE PETROLEUM (P) LTD TO THE KSIDC

Evershine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Evershine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Kerala

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

Sunny Ma Vs John Joseph

Krishna Bahadur Rai Vs K.G.Jayarajan

V.N.Public Health & Educational Trust Vs State of Kerala

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Thankappan Chettiyar

Prabhakaran Vs Ibrahim

Saffe Panel Industry (P) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala