9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that the amount was quantified before 30th June 2019, the basis of rejection would not survive since the main noticee-Petitioner No. 1 has been allowed the benefits of SVLDRS Scheme and consequently, Petitioner No. 3 being a co-noticee would also be entitled. Since Respondents are directed to accept the declaration made by Petitioner No. 1-Firm who is the main noticee, the declaration made by co-noticee-Petitioner No. 3 is consequently required to be accepted - Respondents are directed to accept the application made by Petitioner No. 3 and inform Petitioner No. 3 of any payment to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading the present order. Petition allowed. - K. R. SHRIRAM JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her submits that in the reply, Respondents have sought to justify the rejection on the ground that redemption fine is not covered by the Scheme and even this ground is covered by the decision of this Court in case of Messrs. Esbee Electrotech LLP Ors. Union of India Ors. Writ Petition No.7653 of 2021 dated 26th July 2024. 3.3 Per contra, Respondents does not dispute that the ground of non-quantification has been erroneously stated in the rejection order. Respondents also does not dispute that the issue whether redemption fine is covered by the Scheme or not also stands concluded by the decision of this Court in case of Messrs. Esbee Electrotech LLP Ors. (supra). 3.4 Respondents have admitted that insofar as reason recorded is concerned, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2712190003439, LD2712190003717, LD2712190003221, LD2712190003805 and LD2712190004288 dated 27 th December 2019:- 4.1 On 27th December 2019, Petitioner made aforesaid six declarations for settling the dispute. The said declarations came to be rejected on the following ground:- Rejection reason The application cannot be filed on the basis of Bank Guarantee and the amount is not quantified. Also the category under which the application has not been filed isn t correct. 4.2 Petitioners and Respondents agreed that this issue stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Messrs. Esbee Electrotech LLP Ors. Union of India Ors. (supra) wherein in paragraph 5, it has been held that by virtue of High Court s order in Writ Petition No. 394 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissionerate. Petitioners submit that therefore, there is no basis for rejection on the ground that Petitioner had made two applications. 5.4 Respondents in their affidavit-in-reply have not disputed the aforesaid contention of Petitioners. 5.5 In our view, ground of rejection that Petitioner No. 2 has filed two applications is incorrect since the application made with wrong Commissionerate was withdrawn and fresh application was filed with correct Commissionerate and same has not been disputed as observed by us as above. In the light of the said facts, the ground of rejection does not survive. 5.6 Respondents are directed to accept the aforesaid declaration made by Petitioner No. 2 and intimate to Petitioner No. 2, payment, if any, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
