9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 15-12-2010 - JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR Petitioner Through: Mr. Madan Gera, Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Dubey, Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, O R D E R 1. The short question in this petition is whether the Petitioner company Vacmet Packagings (India) Pvt. Ltd. ( VPIPL ) is entitled to avail of the Target Plus Scheme announced as part of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 ( FTP 2004-09 ) announced by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. Para 3.7.2 of the FTP 2004-09 spells out the eligibility criteria as under: 3.7.2 All Star Export Houses (including Status Holders as defined in para 3.7.1 of Exim Policy 2002-07) which have achieved a minimum export turnover in free foreign exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use companies of the Group. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that it has another enterprise which is in fact a partnership firm in the name of M/s Polypacks Industries having three partners Mr. Dinesh Chand Aggarwal, Mr. Suresh Chand Aggarwal and Mr. Raj Narain Aggarwal. It is stated that the said firm is also a recognised Star Export House. The contention of the Petitioner is that M/s Polypacks Industries is a group company of VPIPL for the purposes of Clause 3.7.4 of the FTP 2004-09. 4. The above clause incorporates by reference the definition of a group company as contained in Clause 9.28 of the FTP 2004-09 which reads as under: 9.28 Group Company means two or more enterprises which directly or indirectly, are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s Polypacks Industries hold shares carrying 26% voting rights in VPIPL or such individual partners are in a position to appoint more than 50% of the members of the board of directors of VPIPL, the firm M/s Polypacks Industries would be a group company of VPIPL. It is consequently submitted that VPIPL ought to be permitted to avail of the benefits under the Target Plus Scheme. 7. This Court is unable to accept the above submissions. 8. It is plain that the definition of group company under para 9.28 of the FTP 2004-2009 envisages two enterprises one of which is in a position to exercise 26% voting rights in the other. While it is correct that the word used is enterprise , certainly that word cannot mean an individual. Even i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidual partners hold share in the company, they would satisfy the requirement of Clause 9.28 is one of desperation. Clearly such individual partners will not answer the description of enterprise in Clause 9.28. To accept such contention is to negate the very purpose of treating the other enterprise as group company for the purpose of Clause 3.7.4 of the FTP 2004-09. The word group company , on a plain reading, should ordinarily mean another company . Even if the meaning of enterprise in Clause 9.28 were stretched to include a firm, it must be shown that the firm as such, and not its individual partners, holds 26% voting rights in the company. Clearly this is not a position in the present case. No fault can be found with the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
