SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 5814 of 2006
A.P. STEEL RE - ROLLING MILL LTD. Appellant;
Versus
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS Respondents.
With
Civil Appeal No. 5816 of 2006
VICTORY PAPERS AND BOARDS INDIA LTD. Appellant;
Versus
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Venkataramani and Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocates (R. Sreekumar, Ramesh Babu M.R., T.G. Narayanan Nair and Romy Chacko, Advocates, with them) for the Appellant;
G. Prakash and M.T. George, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Promissory Estoppel - Industrial Policy - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - 6 - 2 - 1992 - The judgment discusses the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the context of an industrial policy adopted by the State of Kerala and the Kerala State Electricity Board. The court examines the representations made by the State and the Board to the appellants, the delay in granting electrical connection, and the commercial production start date. The court also considers the statutory obligations of the Board and the interpretation of the incentive scheme. The judgment highlights the legal principles of promissory estoppel, the construction of exemption notifications, and the balance of equity or public interest in applying the doctrine.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Kerala adopted an industrial policy in 1992, offering incentives for electricity to new industrial units. The appellants invested in setting up factories based on representations made by the State and the Board. However, they faced delays in obtaining electrical connection, which led to a denial of the incentive scheme benefits. The High Court found that the appellants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the scheme and contributed to the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the incentive scheme and contributed to the delay in obtaining electrical connection, thereby disentitling them to the benefit of the concession orders. The court also held that the principle of promissory estoppel applies when an entrepreneur alters its position pursuant to a promise made by the State, but its application depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Issues: The principal contentions raised by the appellants were related to the application of promissory estoppel, the entitlement to the exemption benefits, and the statutory obligations of the Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel and examined the representations made by the State and the Board, the delay in obtaining electrical connection, and the compliance with the incentive scheme. It also emphasized the balance of equity or public interest in applying the doctrine.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the court found no merit in the appellants' case. The court held that the principle of promissory estoppel applies, but the application thereof depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The appellants were found to have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the incentive scheme, disentitling them to the benefit of the concession orders.
Judgment
S.B. SINHA, J. - Leave granted.
2. These two appeals, involving common questions of fact and law, were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. We will, however, notice the fact of the matter from M/s Victory Papers and Boards India Ltd. case.
4. The State of Kerala adopted an industrial policy in the year 1992 and in the light thereof a notification bearing number GOMs No. 4/92/PD dated 6 - 2 - 1992, was issued, which reads as under:
"ORDER
In the light of the Statement of Industrial Policy approved for implementation by the Government the following incentives in respect of electricity are ordered:
1. New industrial units will be exempted for 5 years from payment of enhanced power tariff which came into effect on 1 - 1 - 1992. This concession will be available
(i) to new units from the date of commercial production, which start such production between 1 - 1 - 1992 and 31 - 12 - 1996;
(ii) to manufacturing units only and not to service and entertainment units;
(iii) to existing units for substantial expansion/modernization/diversification. The concession in such cases will be available only for the consumption of the new machinery and equipments which adds to the capital asset, by not less than 25% of the existing fixed capital investment excluding land and building, the installation of which is to be certified by the competent authority;
(iv) for modernisation, to industrial units having a contract demand not exceeding 500 kVA. In such cases, new equipments alone will be eligible for the concession."
5. The said industrial policy of the State was accepted by the Kerala State Electricity Board, which is a body constituted and incorporated under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, in respect of which a notification was issued on 27 - 3 - 1992. By reason of the said notification, some guidelines were also issued. The appellant herein Contended that pursuant to or in furtherance of the representation made by the State of Kerala and/or the respondent Board, they altered their position by investing a huge amount by setting up factories/new units.
6. The State, admittedly, at the district level constituted a "Green Channel Clearance Committee" (GCC).
7. The appellant had applied for grant of electric power allocation to the extent of 2500 kVA. It obtained loan on 19 - 1 - 1995. As the application of the appellant had not allegedly been processed, GCC issued several reminders to the Board. On or about 17 - 11 - 1995, the appellant informed the Board that the project was at an advanced stage. It was recorded that despite the recommendations by GCC, sanction for grant of electrical connection had not been issued, stating:
"We wish to add at this junctt1te that the Government is inviting entrepreneurs to start their industrial units in the State and are offering power, water and other infrastructural facilities availability so easily. But on the contrary the authorities concerned are reluctant to sanction the necessary infrastructural facilities to the units. Our case is one of the examples. Your good self will appreciate that without electric power we cannot start Our production as per schedule, which will hamper the work and finally affect the production of the unit. The delay in implementing the project will, finally, escalate the cost of the project.
Since more than one year has lapsed after submitting Our application to Kerala SEB, we have so far not received sanction of power to our unit.
Hence we request to your goodself to be kind enough to prevail upon the authority to sanction electric power to our unit to the extent of our requirement."
8. It, allegedly, imported machinery from abroad, which fact was intimated to the Board by a letter dated 24 - 6 - 1996, stating:
"Under the circumstances, our bankers are reluctant to clear term loan because of non - sanctioning of power to the project. Presently, the total machinery worth Rs 3.5 crores have already arrived
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 274
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 4 SCC 272
Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothennics & Hydropower Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 651
Commr. of Customs (Imports) v. Tullow India Operations Ltd. (2005) 13 SCC 789
Bakul Cashew Co. v. STO (1986) 2 SCC 365: 1986 SCC (Tax) 385
Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606
State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 108
Govt. of India v. Indian Tobacco Assn. (2005) 7 SCC 396
Pawan Alloys & Casting (P) Ltd. v. UP. SEB (1997) 7 SCC 251
CCE v. Hira Cement (2006) 2 SCC 439
P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT (2006) 6 SCC 86: (2006) 7 Scale 191
ONGC Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs (2006) 7 SCC 403: (2006) 8 Scale 551
Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf (2006) 7 SCC 756
Ashoka Smokeless Coal Ind. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC 640
Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies AIR 1968 SC 718 : (1968) 2 SCR 366
Mathra Parshad & Sons v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 745
Chairman. U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh (2006) 11 SCC 464: (2006) 12 Scale 347
Shrijee Sales Corpn. v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 398
Ashok Kumar Maheshwari (Dr.) v. State of U.P. (1998) 2 SCC 502 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 592
State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 465
Southern Ispat Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2004) 4 SCC 68
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of UP. (1979) 2 SCC 409: 1979 SCC (Tax) 144
Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd. v. State of UP. (1981) 3 SCC 578 : 1981 SCC (Tax) 280
Union of India v. R.C. DSouza (1987) 2 SCC 211 : (1987) 3 ATC 460
CCTv. Dharmendra Trading Co. (1988) 3 SCC 570
CCE v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. (1989) 1 SCC 345 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 84
Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. CCT 1992 Supp (1) SCC 21
Shabi Construction Co. v. City & Industrial Development Corpn. (1995) 4 SCC 301
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.