Skip to main content

Standing industrial unit cannot be acquired for industrialization: SC

The Supreme Court has scoffed at Haryana's land acquisition policy under which authorities had acquired a fully operational industrial unit and its land for setting up an industrial estate.

A bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjana P Desai quashed acquisition of the land on which the industrial unit was functioning and said, "We are of the view that there is no justification in acquiring a running industrial unit for industrialization of the area."

This happened at Kundli, a stone's throw from Delhi, where the authorities in 2005 acquired the land on which an industrial unit of VKM Katha Industries Ltd had been functioning since 1994. The unit was registered as a small-scale industrial unit with the director, industries department, Haryana, and was manufacturing kattha for various tobacco and non-tobacco products.

On December 21, 2005, Haryana government's industries department issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of certain land in Kundli and Sirsa villages for development of a industrial estate and the land belonging to the company was covered under the said notification.

The company challenged the acquisition but the Punjab and Haryana high court dismissed its writ petition on July 8, 2008. The company's counsel Guru Krishna argued that the industrial unit was running on the date of acquisition, hence it could not have been acquired by the government to set up an industrial estate.

The company showed to the court that the construction at the site in question was of excellent quality and also pointed out that similar units running in the area were left out of the acquisition process.

Justice Sathasivam, authoring the judgment for the bench, said, "On going through the materials placed, we are satisfied that the appellant-company has established that it is a running industrial unit even prior to the notification under the Land Acquisition Act."

Though Haryana's additional advocate general Manjit Singh Dalal pointed out that the acquisition process was carried out in letter and spirit, the bench said, "In other words, even if the government or the authority concerned excludes the land of the appellant-company, there would not be any difficulty in executing the scheme."

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-21/india/41432732_1_land-acquisition-act-industrial-unit-acquisition-process

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil