Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S B.K. Steel Rolling Mills vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031993
RSA-349 of 1994 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:031993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-349 of 1994 (O&M)
Date of Order:06.03.2024
M/s B.K.Steel Rolling Mills
.Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate, for
Mr. Amit Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Pannu, AAG, Haryana.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court which in turn has reversed the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration that
the memo dated 06.02.1984, to recover the amount of subsidy of Rs.45,000/-
is illegal, null and void. The plaintiff applied for central cash subsidy which
was sanctioned and Rs.45,000/- was paid to the plaintiff. However, the
plaintiff-firm did not furnish quarterly progress report and instead
immediately stopped functioning on receipt of the subsidy. Hence, the
aforesaid subsidy was recalled and the recovery was sought to be made. The
plaintiff claims that in the year 1979, the working has been streamlined and
therefore the subsidy could not be recalled.
3. The defendants while contesting the case claim that the
plaintiff-firm started production in the year 1985, though they stopped
working in the year 1976.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031993
RSA-349 of 1994 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:031993
4. Both the courts have concurrently found that the plaintiff has
failed to fulfill the terms of grant of subsidy. The trial court however,
decreed the suit on the ground that the claim of the defendants is beyond the
prescribed time as the breach took place in the year 1978. The First
Appellate Court found that the cause of action to recover the amount will
begin to run from the date the subsidy was recalled.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the
action of the respondents in recalling the subsidy in the year 1984, was
beyond the prescribed time.
6. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the appellant however, found no substance therein.
7. In the year 1976, the subsidy was paid. Subsequently, it came
to the notice of the government and its instrumentality that the plaintiff
stopped operating the industry, therefore show cause notice for recall of the
amount of subsidy was issued by the Government. The limitation to recover
the amount will begin to run from the date the subsidy was recalled and not
from the date it was sanctioned.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
9. Dismissed.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 06, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031993
2 of 2
