2015 (7) TMI 1382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... definition of term 'Formal Transfer' and as such, the company is not liable to pay differential charges. Petitioner also challenges the policy of the corporation as reflected from circular dated 12.05.1998. 3. It is not a matter of dispute that the original lease agreement has been executed between MIDC and M/s Aurangabad Carbon Products Pvt. Ltd. At the time of entering into agreement, composition of the company and distribution of share holding was amongst three family members namely one Rajnarayan Bagla, Harshawardhan jain and Surendra Kumar Raniwala. The structure of share holding thereafter had undergone change and one shri Harshawardhan Jain acquired share holding of other two share holders and as such, Harshawardhan Jain ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....levy service charges, section 63 prescribes powers to make rules and section 64 prescribing powers to make regulations. Petitioner contends that it is not within the competence of MIDC to levy any charges except within contemplation of section 17 of the Act in respect of which rules are required to be framed by the State Government or regulations are required to be approved by the State Government. According to petitioner, such regulations have not been framed and as such, levy of differential charges is not within competence of MIDC. 5. Learned Senior counsel has invited our attention to section 15 of the Act, more particularly clause (a) of section 15 which provides for powers of MIDC to prescribe conditions as may be deemed proper in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cal circumstances whereunder U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation directed levy of amount on account of transfer of interest in the property by the lessee in favour of different company. While dealing with the matter, in paragraphs 24 and 27 of the judgment, the Supreme court as observed thus : 24. In the present case the entire shareholding of Goyal family headed by Mr. Amar Nath Goyal in the said company was transferred to the Mehta-Lamba Family. The entire list of shareholders, Managing Director and Board of Directors was provided by monsanto to the appellant-Corporation vide letter dated 7.5.1994. The record shows that the original subscribers of shares were members of Goyal family and the entire shareholding was trans....