Union Of India & Ors vs Brij Fertilizers Pvt Ltd & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 187 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     LPA 1094/2011
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS                               ..... Appellants
                           Through:    Mr Ruchir Mishra, Adv.
                  versus


      BRIJ FERTILIZERS PVT LTD & ORS                     ..... Respondents
                           Through :   Mr. Kaushal Yadav and Ms Mamta
                                       Rani, Adv. for R-1.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

              ORDER

% 11.01.2013

The grievance of the respondent/writ petitioner was that the release of

subsidy to its unit manufacturing Single Super Phosphate (SSP) has been

postponed till allegation in the legal proceedings pending against them in

terms of an order dated 28.09.2001, issued by Ministry of Fertilizers and

Chemicals.

The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 07.092010 noted

that the legal proceedings which had been initiated against writ petitioner

No. 1/respondent No.1 Brij Fertilizers (P) Ltd. and which had culminated in

filing of a charge sheet on 12.12.2002 had resulted in discharge of the Managing Director and the CEO of petitioner No.1. This assertion of

respondent No. 1 was not disputed by the appellant. The learned Single

Judge directed the appellant to process the case of respondent No.1 for

release of subsidy within four weeks. He further directed that after

ascertaining the amount of subsidy owed to respondent No.1, the appellant

would release the said amount together with any interest that respondent No.

1 may be entitled to in terms of the revised scheme as well as the provisions

of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act,

2006. The said order has been impugned in this appeal.

It is an admitted position before us that the amount of subsidy has

since been paid by the appellant Union of India to respondent No. 1 in terms

of the order dated 07.09.2010, after the said order came to be accepted by it.

The only issue between the parties is with respect to payment of interest on

the amount of subsidy for the period it was withheld by the appellant. The

learned counsel for the appellant states that no subsidy to the respondent is

payable under the provisions of MSMED Act. This, however, is disputed by

the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

The impugned order envisages payment of interest to the respondent

No.1 only if it is found entitled to the same under the provisions of MSMED Act. The question as to whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled to interest

under the provisions of MSMED Act or not has been left to the appellant to

decide. It is for the appellant to take an appropriate decision on the question

of interest, in the light of the provisions of MSMED Act and pay the same in

case it comes to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to such

interest under the provisions of the said Act. If respondent No.1 feels

aggrieved from the decision which the appellant would take on the question

of payment of interest in terms of the order dated 07.09.2010, it would be

open to it to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to it in law.

Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeal and

the same is hereby dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V.K. JAIN, J JANUARY 11, 2013 bg