Dismissed

Messrs Satia Synthetics Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Nov 2008CWP/19404/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought quashing of a rejection letter regarding benefits under the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme. The Court held that writs of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce OTS terms and dismissed the petition due to non-payment by the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as no writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce OTS terms and petitioners failed to make required payments.

Messrs Satia Synthetics Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C. W. P. No. 19404 of 2007 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. W. P. No. 19404 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 03, 2008.

¶5

M/s Satia Synthetics Ltd. and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶8

¶9

Present : Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. B. S. Walia, Advocate for respondent-Corporation.

¶12

¶13

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) :

¶14

C. M. A. No. 10741 of 2008 :

¶15

Application is allowed and rejoinder along with copies of Annexures R-4/(viii) to R-4/(xii) is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Main Case :

¶17

This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 12/13.11.2007 (Annexure P-20) rejecting the case of the petitioners under One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme on the ground that the petitioners did not make

¶18

C. W. P. No. 19404 of 2007 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

payment as per the terms of the OTS up to the stipulated date i.e. 30.06.2007.

¶21

Case of the petitioner is that Agreement (Annexure P-1) dated 13.12.1995 was entered into between the petitioners and respondent no.2 Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (PSIDC), under which respondent no.2 made investment by way of purchasing equity shares of the value of Rs.663 lacs by way of financial aid to the petitioner. Respondent no.2 adopted a policy for facilitating equity disinvestment in the year 2004 (Annexure P-6). The said policy stipulated that the petitioners could buy back the shares, for which application was to be submitted on or before 30.06.2004, with payment of 10% of the amount and the remaining amount was to be paid within three years, which period was up to four years in case of industries in Border areas.

¶22

The petitioner made application along with 10% of the amount and sought to be considered at par with the border district units so as to make remaining payment in four years. The application was responded by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 27.08.2003 (Annexure P-9) and it was made clear that the case of the petitioners does not fall under the border area which was confined to Amritsar, Ferozepur and Gurdaspur Districts. Again vide letter dated 28.06.2004 (Annexure P-10), respondent no.2 informed the petitioners that calculation under the OTS Scheme worked out to be Rs. 43041795/-. Further letter dated 22.07.2004 was sent by respondent no.2 to intimate that request of the petitioners for treating its case at par with border districts was not accepted. Thereafter the petitioners were directed to attend meetings from time to time and finally vide letter dated 12.11.2007 (Annexure P-20), the petitioners were informed that they were required to make payment as per the terms of the OTS, which lapsed on 30.06.2007 and on that account, the OTS benefit was not available to the petitioners. The petitioners were also informed vide letter dated 16.11.2007 (Annexure P-21) that under the advice of the State Government that OTS stood cancelled and those, who did not make payment in terms of OTS by the due date, were no

¶23

C. W. P. No. 19404 of 2007 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

longer eligible to avail of benefit thereunder.

¶26

Grievance of the petitioner is that their case fell in border area for which the OTS could be availed of by making payment up to 30.06.2008 and cancellation of their eligibility vide letter dated 12.11.2007 could not be justified. In any case, the petitioners were now willing to make payment even if their case is treated as not falling in border areas.

¶27

In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, prayer made in the petition is contested. It is pointed out that claim for border area benefits was rejected on 27.08.2003 vide Annexure P-9. Vide letter dated 09.02.2005 (Annexure R-4/(vi)), the petitioners undertook to pay the equity within three years by treating their case to be as non-border area category. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶28

It is undisputed that even up to 30.06.2008, the petitioners did not pay the amount as per OTS scheme for claiming benefit of OTS applicable for border areas. Respondent no.2 has taken a clear stand that case of the petitioners did not fall in border areas, which has been the consistent stand and is not shown to be erroneous. The petitioners admittedly did not comply with the terms of OTS up to 30.06.2007, as required. Willingness to pay now cannot be a ground to allow this petition. 8. It is well settled that no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued for enforcement of terms of OTS, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Sundar Lal Jain and another

¶29

- 2008 (2) SCC 280.

¶30

There is, thus, no merit in the petition.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE

¶33

November 03, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Messrs Satia Synthetics Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Messrs Satia Synthetics Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab 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

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Akash Kumar

M/S Century Metal Recycling P. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

C I T Vs Mahesh Chandra Sharma

Pb. State Coop. Fed. of House Bul. Vs Commissioer of Income Tax and Anr.

Punjab Petroleum Tanker Worker Union Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

M/S Bharat Industrial Corporation Vs State of Haryana and Ors.