Partly allowed

Chairman Processors Ltd. v. the Union of India

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2021CW/3287/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a final hearing in a writ petition regarding a request for a government subsidy on a bank loan. The court directs the Government of India to consider the petitioner's application for a subsidy, following the guidelines of a Bombay High Court precedent, and specifies timelines for representations and reasoned orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Government of India to consider the case for grant of subsidy on the loan obtained from Bank of Bank of Baroda after hearing the petitioner.

Chairman Processors Ltd. Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3287/2019

¶3

Chairman Processors Ltd., (A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Indian Companies Act, 1956) Through Its Director Mukesh Agarwal S/o Shri Madanlal Agarwal, B/c Agarwal, Aged About 51 Years, Having Its Registered Office At Dharam Kanta Compound, Opposite Heera Panna Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union Of India, Represented By Secretary To Government Ministry Of Textiles, New Delhi. 110 011.

¶7

The Textile Commissioner, Ministry Of Textiles Nishta Bhavan, New Cgo Bldg. 48 New Marine Lines, Post Bag No. 11500 Mumbai 400020.

¶8

Bank Of Baroda, Through Its Assistant General Manager, Nagori Garden, Bhilwara 311001.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Dhanesh Kumar Sarswat
		Mr. Navneet Singh Brikh for Mukesh Rajpurohit,ASG

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

26/11/2021

¶14

The matter comes up on an application (inward no.01/2021) under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the matter may be finally heard.

¶16

In light of such prayer, the application is dismissed as not pressed.

¶17

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-3287/2019]

¶20

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy in-question is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench in the matter of M/s Gimatex Industries Private Limited & Anr. Vs The Union of India & Ors., in Writ Petition No.5055/2017, decided on 03.01.2019, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :

¶21

"We, therefore, partly allow this petition and direct the Government of India to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of subsidy on the loan obtained from the Bank of Baroda keeping in view the observations made by this Court and after hearing the petitioners in the matter. The petitioners and the Bank of Baroda to make such a request within a period of two weeks from today and the decision was thereafter be taken within a period of eight weeks after granting the parties an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The decision shall be made by a reasoned order and the same shall be communicated to the petitioners. All questions are left open."

¶22

On such joint submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is also disposed of while directing the Government of India to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of subsidy on the loan obtained from the Bank of Baroda keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner shall move representation within a period of two weeks from today alongwith the certified copy of this order, as well as the order of Hon'ble Bombay of High Court. The Bank of

¶24

(3 of 3) [CW-3287/2019]

¶25

Baroda shall also be free to take its stand before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 thereafter shall, after giving opportunity of hearing to the Bank of Baroda as well as petitioner, pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of three months from receiving the representation of the petitioner.

¶26

All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶28

52-Sudheer/-

Chairman Processors Ltd. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chairman Processors Ltd. v. the Union of India

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

Mahesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Vs State

Suresh Kala Vs State of Rajasthan

Fateh Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhupesh Chandra Pareek and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Lrs of Govind Singh and Ors. Vs Bhanwar Lal Sharma and Anr.