INALSA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-1995-11-94
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on November 13,1995

INALSA LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HINGIR RAMPUR COAL CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

KRISHI ENGINES LTD VS. KRISHI FOUNDRY EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-104] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHI FOUNDRY EMPLOYEES UNION, HYDERABAD VS. KRISHI ENGINES LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-174] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Usha Mehra - (1.)INALSA Limited, the petitioner herein is Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has five existing Small Scale Undertakings manufacturing different products First small scale industrial undertaking was set up at 8/9, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi, in 1973-74 for manufacturing plastic blow-moulded items. Other existing undertakings of the first petitioner arc manufacturing items reserved under Schedule I for the small scale sector. These industrial undertakings besides manufacturing different items are in fact situated at different locations namely at G.T. Karnal Road Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, Rajinder Nagar Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad etc.
(2.)On 7th 0ctober,1988 respondents 3 and 4 issued a certificate certifying that first petitioner has separate industrial undertaking registered as Small Scaie Industrial Unit (In short SSI Units). On 25th March,1989 respondent No.2 issuied a circular purporting to club investments in all SSI units set up by a common proprietor/partner/Director and if such investment exceed Rs. 35 lakhs then all such units would be liable for deregistration. First petitoner made two separate applications - one on 4th 0ctober,1990 for permanent registration of a separate small scale undertaking for electric motors and parts thereof; second on 8th October, 1990 for provisional registration for cycle frames, forks, handles etc. It had also made an application on 22nd February 1990 for re-assessment of capacity of iron and steel for hand pumps etc.
(3.)First petitioner furnished the information of its Directors and informed that the investment ceiling had been complied. Further stated that each of the undertaking was distinct from the other. The respondents, however, rejected all the applications lodged by the first petitioner vide their separate orders of the same date date i.e. 27th November, 1990. Rejection was based, inter aha, on the ground that value of plant & machinery in respect of all units where Directors of the company were common had to be clubbed and since after clubbing exceeded the limit of Rs. 35 lakhs. Hence could not be registered nor could continue.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.