मुख्य पृष्ठमा फर्कनुहोस् सम्पादकीय नीति र तथ्य जाँच

सेयर गर्नुहोस्: Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Viber लिङ्क कपी

GANGTOK, SEPT 10: The High Court of Sikkim has dismissed a writ petition filed by pharmaceutical company Lupin Limited seeking an additional ₹8.65 crore under the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CCISS) of the North-East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (NEIIP).

Lupin, which operates an industrial unit at Rangpo in Sikkim, had claimed a total subsidy of ₹13.65 crore, contending that it had made substantial investments and begun establishing its factory before the Centre revised the scheme in November 2016. The company had already received ₹5 crore in May 2024.

In its judgment pronounced on September 10, a single bench of Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque held that Lupin had failed to establish that it possessed an accrued or vested right to the higher subsidy before the policy was amended.

The court noted that while Lupin had executed a 99-year lease in May 2008 and commenced commercial production on February 10, 2017, it applied for registration with the District Industries Centre only on February 23, 2017. Registration was granted on March 8, 2017.

By then, the November 22, 2016 notification restricting the CCISS for new manufacturing units to ₹ 5 crore was already in force.

The court rejected the argument that prior investment alone created a vested entitlement under the earlier policy.

“A vested right is a right which is fixed and is not dependent upon the fulfillment of a future contingency,” the judgment said, adding that the mere existence of a policy or the commencement of investment does not necessarily create an indefeasible right to its benefits.

The court further held that Lupin could not rely on the doctrines of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel to claim a benefit for which the necessary eligibility conditions had not been fulfilled.

“The mere fact of prior investment may not, by itself, be sufficient to constitute a vested right immune from the subsequent policy amendment,” the court observed.

Lupin had also challenged the manner in which its subsidy was determined, arguing that the authorities had credited ₹5 crore without passing a reasoned order explaining the denial of the remaining amount.

The Union government, however, maintained that Lupin was governed by the revised norms because its registration took place after the 2016 amendment.

The High Court held that Lupin had failed to establish that a vested right to ₹ 13.65 crore had accrued under the unamended NEIIP, 2007, and that such a right had subsequently been taken away.

The court ruled that “the challenge to the denial of the subsidy claimed under the NEIIP, 2007, cannot be sustained on the ground of violation of any vested right.” It further held that “the Petitioner is therefore not entitled to claim the balance subsidy solely on the basis of the unamended Policy.”

सम्बन्धित समाचारहरू