TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ends of justice. C. Grant ad-interim relief in terms of Paragraph No.23(b) D. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just, fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice. And for this act of kindness and justice, the Applicant, as in duty bound, shall pray for ever." 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under : 2.1 The petitioner which is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is filed through its director. 2.2 The respondent No.3- Dahej SEZ Ltd. was granted formal approval for development of Special Economic Zone (for short "SEZ") in Dahej area pursuant to Notification No. F-2/9/2003-EPZ, dated 20.12.2006 for setting up multi product Special Economic Zone at Village Dahej, Taluka: Vagra, District : Bharuch under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (for short 'the SEZ Act'). 2.3 In the year 2009, the petitioner made an application before the respondent No.1the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zone under the provisions of the SEZ Act to become a Co-developer in Dahej Special Economic Zone along with the respondent No.3-Dahej SEZ Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A No.84 of 2014 under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad. The respondent no.3- Dahej SEZ Ltd. also preferred an application for joining party seeking certain clarifications, which was disposed of by the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 20.02.2018. Pursuant to the Notice under Section 13(2) dated 06.04.2014 and Notice under Section 13(4) dated 18.06.2014, issued by the SIDBI under Secularization Act, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 13,31,88,723.70/- from the petitioner, the SIDBI proceeded to take possession of the property of the petitioner in the SEZ by addressing a letter dated 18.06.2014, to The respondent no.3- Dahej SEZ Ltd. The SIDBI took the symbolic possession of the property of the petitioner on 26.02.2014 and thereafter, started proceeding to auction the same as per the provisions of the Securitisation Act. It appears that the SIDBI moved the Collector, Bharuch for taking physical possession of the property in question under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act. On 02.03.2016, the Collector Bharuch passed an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act and on 07.10.2016, the SIDBI informed The respondent no.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranted approval of co-developer status to the respondent No.4 on 06.04.2018 subject to certain conditions, which included submissions of formal amendment to the sale certificate issued by SIDBI to the Zonal Development Commissioner and cancellation of Co-developer agreement with the petitioner. 2.15 The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied has challenged the approval granted by the respondent No.1-Board to the proposal to grant co-developer status to the respondent No.4 in the SEZ at Dahej. 2.16 It appears that thereafter, the necessary follow up actions are taken by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and sale certificate was amended to incorporate the stipulated conditions in the resolution of the Board of Approval. 3. Heard Mr.Ravish D. Bhatt, the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Kamal Trivedi, the learned senior advocate assisted by Mr.Abhishek M. Mehta, the learned advocate for the respondent No.4, Mr.Rituraj M. Meena, the learned advocate for the respondent No.3 and Mr.Devang Vyas, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent No.2. 4. Mr. Bhatt, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned decision taken on the Proposal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat in view of the information given by the respondent No.3 that revised codeveloper agreement with the respondent No.4 mentions about the transfer of assets and liabilities of the petitioner to the new co-developer and the codeveloper agreement with the petitioner, which was required to be cancelled is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules as no agreement could have been entered between the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 prior to the suspension of transfer/cancellation of the letter of approval by the respondent No.1 issued in favour of the petitioner. 4.4 It was submitted that when the matter with regard to the legality of the sale certificate issued by SIDBI was subjudice before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, then, the respondent No.1 was not justified in stipulating a condition for amendment in the sale certificate. It was further submitted that cancellation of Co-developer agreement with the petitioner could not have been decided in view of an action under the provisions of Securitisation Act so as to legalize such action as no auction under Securitisation Act could have been effected in favour of the respondent No.4 as the petitioner had only sub leasehold rights, which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that as on today, only the certificate dated 07.01.2017 is in existence and therefore, the respondent No.4 has failed to comply with the condition prescribed in the impugned order. 4.9 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that before entering into any agreement of Co-developer with the respondent No.4, the respondent No.3Dahej SEZ Ltd. was required to first to suspend the petitioner as a co-developer and thereafter, was required to cancel the co-developer agreement after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as per provision of Section 10 of the SEZ Act. It was therefore, contended that the codeveloper agreement dated 02.08.2017 executed between the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which is anterior in point of time could be valid only if it is preceded in point of time by the decision of the Board of Approval in conformity with the provisions of SEZ Act. 5. Per contra, Mr.Kamal Trivedi, the learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek M. Mehta appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that the petitioner has no locus to prefer this petition in view of the fact that the possession of the plot in question was already taken by the SIDBI and thereafter,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No.4 as co-developer and not for cancellation of agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.3. The approval of co-developer status in favour of the respondent No.4 relates to codeveloper agreement between the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.4 which is not challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, only to challenge the decision of the Board of Approval to grant status of codeveloper to the respondent no.4 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5.6 It was further submitted that the co-developer agreement executed earlier between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 had become redundant/ superseded in view of the subsequent co-developer agreement with the respondent No.4 in view of sale of property in question by SIDBI. It was further submitted that the respondent No.4 has already been granted electricity connection in its name as it was transferred from the name of the petitioner and water connection is also granted by the GIDC. By letter dated 03.08.2018, the respondent No.3 also confirmed that both the conditions stipulated in the approval granted by the respondent No.1 are fulfilled. 5.7 The learned Senior advocate further submitted that looking to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12) of section 3; (g) "Developer" means a person who, or a State Government which, has been granted by the Central Government a lette DRT act of approval under sub-section (10) of section 3 and includes an Authority and a Co-Developer; (zc) "Unit" means a Unit set up by an entrepreneur in a Special Economic Zone and includes an existing Unit, an Offshore Banking Unit and a Unit in an International Financial Services Centre, whether established before or established after commencement of this Act; 3. Procedure for making proposal to establish Special Economic Zone.- (1) A Special Economic Zone may be established under this Act, either jointly or severally by the Central Government, State Government, or any person for manufacture of goods or rendering services or for both or as a Free Trade and Warehousing Zone. Section 10. Suspension of letter of approval and transfer of Special Economic Zone in certain cases.-10. (1) If at any time the Board is of the opinion that a Developer - (a) is unable to discharge the functions or perform the duties imposed on him by or under the provisions of this Act or rules made there under; or (b) has persistently defaulted in complying with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), as the case may be. (7) Where the Board has given notice for suspension of letter of approval under subsection (5), the Developer may, after prior approval of the Board, transfer his letter of approval to any person who is found eligible by the Board for grant of such approval. (8) If at any time, it appears to the Board that the purpose of the order appointing the Administrator has been fulfilled or that for any reason it is undesirable that the order of appointment should remain in force, the Board may cancel the order and thereupon the Administrator shall be divested of the management of the Special Economic Zone which shall, unless otherwise directed by the Board, again vest in the person, being the Developer, in whom it was vested immediately prior to the date of appointment of the Administrator. (9) Where the Board suspends the letter of approval, under this section, in respect of any Developer, the following provisions shall apply, namely:- (a) the Board shall invite applications for transferring the letter of approval of the Developer, whose approval has been suspended and select the person or persons, in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed, to who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....providing of services by a service provider, from outside India, or from the Domestic Tariff Area, for carrying on the authorised operations by the Developer, in the Special Economic Zone; (c) monitor the utilisation of goods or services or warehousing or trading in the Special Economic Zone; (d) approve, modify or reject proposals for setting up Units for manufacturing or rendering services or warehousing or trading in the Special Economic Zone [other than the grant of licence under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 9] in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 15; Provided that where the Approval Committee is unable to decide whether a particular process constitutes manufacture or not, it shall refer the same to the Board of Approval for a decision. (e) allow, on receipt of approval under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 9, foreign collaborations and foreign 16. Cancellation of letter of approval to entrepreneur.-(1) The Approval Committee may, at any time, if it has any reason or cause to believe that the entrepreneur has persistently contravened any of the terms and conditions or its obligations subject to which the letter of approv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etties, single point moorings, storage tanks and interconnecting pipelines for liquids and gases, Inland Container Depot or Container Freight Station, warehouses, airports, railways, transport system, generation and distribution of power, gas and other forms of energy, telecommunication, data transmission network, information technology network, hospitals, hotels, educational institutions, leisure, recreational and entertainment facilities, residential and business complex, water supply, including desalination plant, sanitation facility; (iii) Section 35 of the Securitisation Act reads thus: "35. The provisions of this Act to override other laws.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." 7.The facts of the case are not in dispute, the petitioner after committing default in payment of the loan taken from SIDBI, actions were taken under the provisions of Securitisation Act by the SIDBI to recover the loan accordingly, the SIDBI issued Notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. After obtaining ....