REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant

V/S

AMRIT BANASPATI CO., LTD Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PLIMMER V. MAYOR ETC. OF WELLINGTON [REFERRED TO]
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO V. BOURNE [REFERRED TO]
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION V. MERRILL [REFERRED TO]
ROBERTSON V. MINISTER OF PENSIONS [REFERRED TO]
FALMOUTH BOAT CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. V. HOWELL [REFERRED TO]
PRINCE OF WALES V. COLLOM [REFERRED TO]
HOWELL V. FALMOUTH BOAT CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHEND CORPORATION V. HODGSON LTD. [REFERRED TO]
KOK HOONG V. LEONG CHEONG MINES [REFERRED TO]
WELLS V. MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT [REFERRED TO]
LEVER FINANCE LTD. V. WESTMINSTER (CITY) LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: LIVERPOOL TAXI OWNERS' ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
MALHOTRA AND SONS V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MATHRA PARSHAD AND SONS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SUGANMAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ANGLO AF GHAN AGENCIES CIVIL APPEALS NOS 973 TO 975 OF 1967 THE UNION OF INDIA IN ALL THE APPEALS APPELLANT V OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
CENTURY SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. ULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER CHAND HEM RAJ AND VS. LT GOVERNOR ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K P JOSEPH [REFERRED TO]
M RAMANATHA PILLAI S AJIT SINGH KULBHUSHAN LAL VS. STATE OF KERALA:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA AMALGAMATED MALABAR ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING WVG CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY VS. BRIJ KISHORE AGARWALA [REFERRED TO]
EXCISE COMMISSIONER U P ALLAHABAD VS. RAM KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
DAULAT RAM TRILOK NATH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MARITIME ELECTRIC CO LTD VS. GENERAL DAIRIES LTD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and the Civil Writ Petition may be disposed of by a common judgment. We proceed to do so.

(2.) IN 1966, the Government of Punjab announced its 'new Policy' in regard to industrial Development and issued a brochure containing the details of the 'new policy'. It was stated in the brochure that though Punjab had made considerable progress in 'small Scale Industry', the State was lagging behind in 'large Scale industry. ' As it was felt that 'large Scale Industries' were necessary for the survival of 'small Scale Industries', the Government announced that 'a package of incentives' would be given to those setting up selected industries at any of the three 'focal points' of Dhandari Kalan, Rajpura and Mohali. The concessions and incentives offered, according to the brochure, were:

(3.) AMRIT Banaspati Co. Ltd. (Respondent in the Letters Patent Appeal and the petitioner in the Civil Writ Petition) who was already engaged in the business of manufacture of Vanaspati at Ghaziabad was attracted by the concessions and incentives offered by the Government of Punjab and started negotiations for the setting up of a factory for the manufacture of Vanaspati in Punjab. They wrote a letter dated 1-6-1968 to the Chief Minister of Punjab with copies to the secretary, Industries Department, Director of Industries etc. requesting information regarding the concessions and facilities which would be made available if they set up a Vanaspati Unit in Punjab. In reply to this letter, the director of Industries sent them a copv of the booklet mentioned by us, and briefly summarised in his letter dated 2-7-1968 the important concessions, which were available, as follows:-

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AMRIT BANASPATI CO LTD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address