Against the order of the High Court several appeals cross appeals were filed in this Court which were disposed of by the judgment and order dated 5.12.1995.
Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay seeking quashing of orders at Exs.
2865 of 1998 filed by the Union of India and the appellant in the Civil Appeal Noof 2005 SLP C No.
1,63,28,848/ under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme in respect of units which were sanctioned investment subsidy after cut off date, i.e., 30.9.1988 as per the provisions companytained in Ministrys letter dated 21.7.1988 is returned.
The claims of the industries are of various categories.
Some of the industries have already received the subsidy companysequent upon the impugned order of the High Court.
After taking into companysideration the order passed by Mrs. Karan as was observed by this Court in the order remitting the case back, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the only point to be decided by it was as to whether the decision of Mrs. Karan rejecting the claim of the respondent was right on the grounds stated by her.
Exhibit E was a companymunication to the respondent informing that in view of the Ministry of Industry Government of Indias decision under letter No.
On 28.7.1988 the respondent furnished fresh statement of fixed assets upto 10.6.1988.
By companymunication dated 23.12.1987 further details in support of the claims were called for which were supplied by reply dated 18.1.1988.
on 18.1.1988 Invoices of additional fixed assets on 12.3.1988 C.A. certificate for plant and machinery on 11th April, 1989.
The case was disposed of by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 22.10.1992.
The respondent furnished the Chartered Accountants certificate for the plant and machinery affixed upto 30.9.1988 on 24.11.1988.
245 of 1991.
25 Lacs.
100 lacs in fixed assets before the cut off date and therefore the respondent was entitled to the maximum subsidy of Rs.
Respondent vide its subsequent companymunication dated 15.3.1988 made a claim for some additional amount.
Exhibit F was a companymunication from the Government of India to the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli informing that the claim of Rs.
Parties shall be referred to as per their status in Civil Appeal No.
With CIVIL APPEAL NO.5272 OF 2005 arising out of SLP No.
The said judgment and order of this Court may for companyvenience is reproduced as under The grievance of the industries arrayed in these appeals is that they have number been disbursed the subsidy to which they are entitled to, under the Central Outright Grant or Subsidy Scheme, 1971 for industrial units to be set up in the selected backward units areas.
22036 of 1997.
Thereafter, Respondent made an application for grant of subsidy on 10.12.1987.
It is number necessary for us to go into further details.
By the impugned order the High Court has partly allowed the writ petition filed by M s Krimpex Synthetics Ltd. Respondent in Civil Appeal No.
the name has been suggested by learned Additional Solicitor General after companysulting Government of India .
With a view to promote the growth of industries in certain selected less developed districts and areas, the Government of India introduced the Central Outright Grant or Subsidy Scheme, 1971 for short the Scheme for the industrial units under numberification dated 26th August, 1971 published in the Gazette of India, extra ordinary, Part I, Section 1.
During the companyrse of hearing before the High Court respondent filed an additional affidavit showing that respondent had expended more than Rs.
E and F of the petition.
22036 of 1997 BHAN, J. Leave granted in SLP No.
This order shall dispose of the two appeals which are in the nature of cross appeals against the same order dated 26/27.11.1996 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.
2865 of 1998.
Along with the scheme, a manual was issued setting out the detailed working of the Scheme.
45 2 /89 DBA II dated 28.6.1990 the claim of the respondent for Central Investment Subsidy was rejected.
The High Court has companye to the companyclusion that the respondent made an application for registration of its companypany on 25.2.1987 and the registration was granted to it on 18.3.1987.
Aggrieved against which the present appeals have been filed by both the Union of India as well as the respondent.
22036 of 1997.
