Shareholding change as non-formal transfer upheld, allowing differential charges under the lease and statutory framework.

Transfer of more than 51% shareholding was treated as a non-formal transfer because the lease deed barred assignment or transfer of the lessee's interest without prior written consent and allowed the authority to impose conditions, including premium. A change in shareholding beyond the family sphere was not regarded as a mere formal change. The challenge to the authority's power under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act was rejected because the statutory and lease framework permitted regulation of lease terms and transfer, supported by Supreme Court authority on change of control through share transfer. Differential charges were therefore upheld as payable.

---

---

Issues: Whether transfer of more than 51% shareholding amounted to a non-formal transfer attracting differential charges, and whether MIDC had authority to levy such charges under the governing statutory and lease framework.

Analysis: The lease deed prohibited assignment or transfer of the lessee's interest without prior written consent and permitted the authority to impose conditions including payment of premium. The change in shareholding was treated as a transfer beyond the family sphere and not a mere formal change. The challenge to competence under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act was rejected in view of the statutory power to regulate terms of lease and transfer and the supporting Supreme Court authority on change of control through share transfer.

Conclusion: The transfer was held to be a non-formal transfer and MIDC was entitled to demand differential charges. The petitioner's challenge failed.

---