9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2006 - JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.-1. By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for settingaside the Notification S.O. 165 dated 19.12.1986 in so far as it excludesSikandrabad Block of Bulandshahar District from the list of backward areas forthe purpose of getting the benefit under Section 80HH of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial undertaking, which sets up its business in a backward area. 4. Backward areas were specified in the 8 th Schedule to the Act and District Bulandshahar was mentioned in its entirety as quoted in para 4 of the writ petition. 5. The petitioner applied for land to set up a unit at Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar on 27.09.1985. The U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a date not earlier than the 1 st day of April, 1983." 7. In pursuance of Section 80HH, a Notification SO 165 dated 19.12.1986 was issued by the Central Government which redefined the backward areas with retrospective effect from 01.04.1983. A copy of the Notification is annexed as Annexure-A2 to the writ Petition. Sikandrabad block of Bulandshahar District was excluded from the list of back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and it has no relevance to the present case. In the present case, the law has been amended by Parliament, and we cannot ignore this amendment. There was no amendment to the law in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Nestle India Ltd. (Supra). Hence, the petitioner can derive no benefit from that decision. Admittedly by the notification dated 19.12.1986 Sikandrabad Block, where the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
