Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the industrial unit had been "set up" on or before 1 October 1988 so as to qualify for subsidy under the Government order granting incentive to new units set up on or after that date.
Analysis: The expression "set up" was construed to mean that the unit had reached a stage where it was ready to function as a productive unit, and not that it must have actually commenced production. Mere preliminary steps such as obtaining finance did not amount to setting up. On the facts, the unit had not even been sanctioned electricity until February 1989, and electricity supply was an essential ingredient for the unit to become functional. The loan sanctioned earlier was therefore irrelevant, and the unit could not be treated as having been set up by 1 October 1988.
Conclusion: The unit was not set up by 1 October 1988 and the petitioner was entitled to the enhanced subsidy.
Final Conclusion: The rejection of the higher subsidy was unsustainable, and the petitioner was held entitled to release of the balance amount under the incentive order.
Ratio Decidendi: A unit is "set up" when it is ready to commence its intended operations, and not merely when preliminary arrangements or financing have been secured; actual production is not necessary, but functional readiness is essential.